?JESftft 


mm 


wmm 


mm. 


# 

Ql 

f 

.5 

IE 

3 

4 

CD 

J5 

<**> 

IE 

: 

£5        ** 

Ql 

. 

M— 

o 

5 

^       g 

CD 

c 
bfl 
<: 

~CD 

3 

• 

Jzi 

£ 

^*                M 

CO 

ag              « 

C/) 

•S      ^     J 

■**              ft 

i.! 

<5    3    ^ 

^ 

S 

<t 

5*. 

& 

-o 

^ 

o 

C 

>* 

CD 

& 

CD 

^ 

CL 

THE 


CRUCIFIXION 


OF 


CHR  1ST. 


BY       / 

DANIEL  H.^HILL, 

SUPERINTENDENT  OF   THE   NOKTH   CAROLINA   MILITARY  INSTITUTE,   AND 
LATE  BREVET  MAJOR  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES   ARMY. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
WILLIAM   S.   &  ALFRED  MARTIEN, 

No.  606  Chestnut  Street. 

LONDON:  JAMES  NISBET  &  CO. 
1859. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1859,  by 

WILLIAM  S.  &  ALFRED  MARTIEN, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern 

District  of  Pennsylvania. 


CONTENTS 


Page 
Preface 5 


CHAPTER  I. 
Principles  of  Evidence 13 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Evangelists  and  their  Characteristics 18 

CHAPTER  III. 

Testimony  of  the  Four  Evangelists — Jesus  warns 

his  Disciples 28 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Jesus  in   Gethsemane 32 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Arrest  of  Jesus 75 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Denial  of  Peter 159 

(3) 


4  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Page 

The  Character  of  Peter 222 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Number  Three 232 

CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Trial  of  Jesus  before  Caiaphas 245 

CHAPTER  X. 
The  Maltreatment  of  Jesus 279 

CHAPTER  XI. 
Jesus  before  the  Sanhedrim 304 


PKEFACE. 


The  four  Gospels,  as  they  are  called,  bearing 
the  names  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John, 
contain  narratives  of  the  birth,  the  life,  the 
sayings,  doings,  and  sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Luke  was  a  physician.  The  three  others  had 
no  claim  to  human  learning.  They  were  men 
of  humble  position  and  occupation.  Yet  these 
narratives  have  successfully  challenged  the 
attention  of  men  of  all  classes,  of  all  profes- 
sions, and  of  all  grades  of  talent  and  learning, 
through  many  centuries;  and  large  numbers 
of  men  of  great  erudition  have  devoted  much 
time  and  labour  to  writing  commentaries  and 
discourses  on  these  books.  In  regard  to  style, 
whilst  the  different  writers  exhibit  their  indi- 
vidual peculiarities,  their  narratives  and  their 
reports  of  the  sayings  and  discourses  of  Jesus 
1*  (5) 


PREFACE. 


Christ  are  characterized  by  an  inimitable  sim- 
plicity; and  yet,  the  principles  they  state,  and 
the  great  subjects  they  bring  to  view,  evince 
extraordinary  wisdom. 

These  narratives  contain  no  description  of 
the  personal  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ.  On 
this  subject  they  are  absolutely  silent.  Nor  do 
they  contain  any  particular  delineation  of  his 
character;  and  yet,  when  we  have  carefully 
read  them  all,  and  compared  the  different  parts 
of  the  several  narratives,  we  do  find  his  charac- 
ter fully  and  perfectly  drawn.  The  writers 
have  made  us  acquainted  with  him,  not  by  any 
description  of  his  person  or  of  his  character, 
but  by  simply  stating  what  he  said,  and  what 
he  did.  And  his  sayings  and  doings,  as  re- 
corded by  them,  not  only  exhibit  a  complete, 
but  an  absolutely  perfect  character.  During 
his  public  ministry,  he  was  placed  in  many  very 
trying  circumstances — circumstances  which,  if 
he  had  any  weaknesses  or  imperfections,  must 
have  brought  them  strongly  to  view;  and  yet, 
in  all  that  he  said,  and  in  all  that  he  did,  we 
find  no  intellectual  weakness,  no  moral  delin- 
quency, no  defect  in  temper.  On  the  contrary, 
in  his  discourses,  as  recorded  by  these  writers, 
and  in  his  answers  to  questions  propounded  by 


PREFACE. 


sincere  inquirers  and  by  cavillers,  there  is  a 
dignity,  a  knowledge  of  human  nature,  a  truth- 
fulness, a  majesty,  that  commands  our  respect 
and  admiration;  and  they  are  pervaded  by  a 
spirit  that  prepares  us  to  appreciate  the  state- 
ment, that  on  a  certain  occasion,  those  who 
heard  him,  "all  bare  him  witness,  and  won- 
dered at  the  gracious  words  that  proceeded  out 
of  his  mouth."  Nay,  we  are  prepared  for  the 
declaration  of  the  officers  sent  by  the  priests 
and  Pharisees  to  arrest  him — "Never  man 
spake  like  this  man." 

And  whilst  we  admire  the  character  thus 
drawn  by  the  Evangelists,  and  feel  the  irresisti- 
ble conviction  that  Jesus  Christ  was  more  than 
man,  we  cannot  but  wonder  how  it  was  possible 
for  such  men  to  write,  with  such  inimitable 
simplicity,  and  how  they  came  thus  indirectly, 
but  perfectly,  to  portray. a  character  of  such 
wisdom  and  purity  —  so  absolutely  perfect. 
There  is  no  kind  of  composition  more  difficult 
than  this;  and  there  is  no  more  difficult  work 
than  to  portray  correctly  the  character  of  a 
man,  and  correctly  to  record  his  sayings  and 
discourses,  especially  if  they  relate  to  great 
subjects,  and  embody  great  wisdom.  If  these 
men   were   under    the  guidance    of  the  Holy 


PREFACE. 


Spirit,  as  Christians  believe,  all  is  plain.  We 
can  easily  admit,  that  under  such  direction 
they  might  prepare  such  narratives.  But  if 
they  had  no  such  assistance,  then  these  four 
books  are  a  profound  mystery. 

But  throughout  these  narratives,  we  find 
many  acts  and  occurrences  related,  which,  if 
true,  prove  beyond  a  question,  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Saviour  of  men — 
that  Christianity  is  worthy  of  all  acceptation. 
He  is  said  to  have  instantly  restored  sight  to 
persons  born  blind,  and  without  using  any 
means  adapted  to  such  a  result.  He  is  reported 
to  have  healed  all  manner  of  malignant  dis- 
eases instantly,  by  a  touch  or  a  word.  He  is 
represented  as  raising  the  dead  to  life.  Places 
and  circumstances  are  mentioned,  and  some- 
times the  names  of  the  persons.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  deny  or  to  doubt,  that  the  facts  stated 
are  such  as  would  be  palpable  to  the  senses, 
and,  therefore,  are  susceptible  of  being  proved 
by  testimony.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted,  that 
men  capable  of  writing  these  narratives,  were 
possessed  of  sufficient  intelligence  to  know  whe- 
ther they  themselves  witnessed  those  things. 

Were  they,  as  witnesses,  honest  and  truthful, 
as  well  as  intellectually  capable  \     We  might 


PREFACE.  9 

contend  that  they  were  so,  because  they  had 
much  to  lose,  and  nothing  to  gain,  by  publish- 
ing those  things,  if  they  were  not  true.  We 
might  say  that  their  firm  adherence  to  Christ 
and  his  cause,  through  the  temptations  and 
sufferings  of  a  life-time,  demonstrate  their  sin- 
cerity. We  might  contend  that  bad  men  could 
not  write  what  is  contained  in  these  four  Gos- 
pels; and  would  not  if  they  could.  But  the 
author  of  the  following  work  places  the  Evan- 
gelists on  the  stand,  as  before  a  civil  court,  and 
subjects  them  to  the  most  rigid  scrutiny;  and 
he  demonstrates  that  they  exhibit  such  and  so 
many  evidences  of  sincerity  and  truthfulness, 
that  in  any  court  of  justice  their  testimony 
would  be  admitted. 

The  book  is  the  more  interesting,  as  coming 
from  the  pen  of  an  educated  layman.  The  dis- 
cussion of  such  subjects  has  been  mainly  left  to 
ministers  of  the  Gospel;  and  they  have  ably 
and  conclusively  demonstrated  the  truth  of 
Christianity.  But  we  read,  with  peculiar  inter- 
est, the  views  and  arguments  of  men  who, 
though  Christians,  have  been  chiefly  engaged 
in  secular  callings;  who  have  mingled,  more 
than  ministers  have,  with  men  of  all  classes, 
and  have  thus  become  more  familiar  with  their 


10  PREFACE. 

objections  and  cavils.  Such  works  are  adapted 
to  arrest  the  attention  of  worldly  men;  and 
their  arguments  are  likely  to  have  peculiar 
weight  with  many.  Quite  a  sensation  was 
produced  in  England,  when  Wilberforce  pub- 
lished his  Practical  View  of  Christianity;  and 
by  the  blessing  of  God,  it  accomplished  what 
no  book  from  the  pen  of  a  minister  could  have 
accomplished. 

Major  Hill  has  not  written  hastily  and  super- 
ficially on  this  great  subject.  His  previous 
training,  and  his  position  as  Professor  in  one 
of  our  first  Literary  Institutions,  have  ena- 
bled him  to  give  the  subject  very  thorough 
investigation;  and  the  reader  will  be  convinced 
before  reading  many  pages,  that  every  point 
has  been  carefully  weighed.  The  many  coinci- 
dences, evidently  undesigned,  in  these  four 
narratives,  the  remarkable  fact  that  each  not 
only  corroborates,  but  completes  the  narratives 
of  the  others,  afford  evidence  of  the  most  con- 
clusive character.  The  work  is  very  much  on 
the  plan  of  Paley's  Horce  Paulina  ;  and  it  fills 
a  place  not  so  well  filled  by  any  work  known 
to  us. 

The  style  of  our  author  is  remarkable  for  its 
clearness  and  simplicity;    and  his   arguments 


PREFACE.  11 

are  so  clearly  stated,  and  are  so  conclusive,  that 
we  find  not  only  advantage,  but  pleasure  in  the 
perusal  of  the  book.  Without  endorsing  every 
sentiment  in  this  book,  I  can  earnestly  recom- 
mend it  as  a  work  of  great  merit — a  work 
specially  needed  in  this  day,  when  infidelity  is 
putting  forth  its  cavils  in  every  part  of  the 
country,  with  so  much  zeal  and  success. 

N.  L.  RICE. 
Chicago,  August,  1859. 


INSCRIBED 
TO 

Dr.  JOHK  T.  CABEEN, 

THE    BELOVED    BROTHER    OP    MY   MOTHER; 

THE    SOLE    SURVIVOR    OF    A    FAMILY 

WHO    LOVED    THE    LORD   JESUS 

IN    SINCERITY    AND 

IN    TRUTH. 


THE 

CRUCIFIXION  OF  CHRIST. 


CHAPTER  L 

PRINCIPLES   OF   EVIDENCE. 

In  courts  of  justice,  the  substantial  agreement  of  four 
independent  witnesses  is  more  than  sufficient  to  estab- 
lish any  fact.  The  only  question  with  the  jury  is 
as  to  the  honesty  and  competency  of  the  witnesses. 
When  satisfied  on  these  two  points,  they  are  bound 
to  give  their  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  testimony ; 
but  should  the  evidence  come  up  for  revision,  long 
after  the  witnesses  had  passed  away,  and  their  cha- 
racters were  then  unknown  or  forgotten,  there  are 
still  two  tests  by  which  the  truth  of  their  statements 
can  be  tried.  The  first  is  to  be  found  in  the  character 
of  their  narratives.  It  is  a  strong  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  the  veracity  of  witnesses,  when  their  state- 
ments differ  in  language,  manner,  and  form,  but  agree 
in  the  main  in  regard  to  every  essential  particular. 
This  presumption,  in  favour  of  their  honesty  and 
2 


14  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

impartiality,  is  further  confirmed,  when  the  narrative 
of  each  one  is  incomplete  in  itself  until  filled  out  by 
that  of  the  others;  when  there  are  apparent  discre- 
pancies on  the  first  examination,  which  disappear  on 
a  closer  inspection ;  when  the  witnesses  do  not  sup- 
press facts  which  are  discreditable  to  themselves,  but 
which  are  important  in  their  bearing  upon  the  occur- 
rence under  consideration ;  and  when,  especially,  each 
witness  relates  that  which,  from  his  opportunity  of 
observation,  from  his  tone  of  thought,  from  his  tem- 
perament, or  from  his  profession  in  life,  he  would  be 
most  likely  to  notice  and  to  speak  of. 

Inasmuch  as  we  attach  great  importance  to  the  last 
point  made,  and  as  our  argument  will  rest  chiefly  upon 
it,  we  will  explain  our  meaning  more  fully.  Suppose 
that  a  professed  eye-witness  of  a  battle  described  only 
such  movements  of  the  troops  as  we,  from  our  know- 
ledge of  the  ground,  knew  that  it  was  possible  for  him 
to  see  from  the  place  at  which  he  stood.  This  fact 
alone  would  most  likely  satisfy  us  that  he  was  a  relia- 
ble man.  And  especially  would  this  be  so,  if  the 
observer  gave  a  professional  cast  to  his  remarks  on 
what  he  had  seen.  Suppose,  for  instance,  that  the 
observer  was  an  army-tailor,  a  maker  of  uniforms, 
and  that  in  his  description  of  the  troops,  he  noticed 
particularly  their  rich  dresses,  gaudy  decorations,  and 
gay  trappings  ;  our  faith  in  the  man  would  be  greatly 
strengthened  by  his  natural  trade-like  observations. 

We  have  seen  an  anecdote  of  a  shoemaker,  who  was 
shown  a  portrait  by  Apelles.     He  had  not  a  word  to 


OF    CHRIST.  15 

say  about  the  faultless  figure  and  the  noble  counte- 
nance that  seemed  instinct  with  life  and  intelligence, 
but  remarked,  that  the  shoes  were  not  a  neat  fit.  The 
criticism  was  perfectly  natural,  because  strictly  pro- 
fessional. Every  one  has  noticed  a  similar  effect 
exerted  by  the  business  in  life,  upon  the  manner  of 
observing  things.  We  will  mention  an  instance  that 
came  within  our  own  knowledge.  A  soldier  and  a 
merchant  were  conversing  about  the  humour  of  Fal- 
staff.  The  former  thought  that  the  most  laughable 
incident  was  the  doughty  Jack's  soliloquy  over  the 
dead  Percy ;  but  the  merchant  thought  that  the  rich- 
est thing  was  the  penniless  knight  sending  to  buy  a 
satin  cloak,  and  offering  for  security  Bardolph,  whose 
credit  was  worse,  if  possible,  than  his  own.  Both 
merchant  and  soldier  had  read  Shakspeare  with  their 
professional  spectacles  on,  and  neither  had  noticed 
that  which  had  amused  the  other.  The  same  sort  of 
criticism  is  made  every  day,  not  only  of  the  writings 
of  authors,  but  also  of  the  events  and  transactions  in 
common  life.  The  writer  of  this  once  spent  a  night 
in  a  lumber-camp  in  Maine,  and  found  that  the  con- 
versation of  the  woodmen  was  about  nothing  but 
felling  timber.  With  them  it  was  literally  true,  that 
"a  man  was  famous  according  as  he  had  lifted  up 
axes  upon  the  thick  trees."  Psa.  lxxiv.  5. 

We  propose  to  show  that  all  the  marks  of  honesty 
and  truth,  given  in  our  first  test,  are  to  be  found  in 
the  writings  of  the  four  Evangelists.  We  will  find  a 
want  of  finish,   and  an  occasional   obscurity,  in   the 


16  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

account  of  each  by  itself,  until  completed  and  made 
clear  by  that  of  the  others.  We  will  find  seeming 
contradictions,  that  can  only  be  reconciled  after 
thorough  investigation.  We  will  find  the  narrators 
relating,  with  the  utmost  candour  and  simplicity, 
things  which  are  by  no  means  honourable  to  them- 
selves. We  will  find  their  statements  modified  by 
personal  knowledge,  by  their  mode  of  thinking,  by 
individual  characteristics,  and  by  professional  bias. 

A  second  test  of  the  truth  of  evidence  is  one  in 
regard  to  the  time  at  which  the  occurrence  purports 
to  have  taken  place.  We  are  strongly  impressed  with 
the  truth  of  any  testimony,  when  we  find  it  consistent 
with  the  character  of  the  age  in  which  it  was  given ; 
consistent  with  the  language,  manners,  and  customs 
then  prevailing;  and  consistent  with  the  form  of 
government  and  national  institutions  then  existing. 
The  spuriousness  of  many  books  has  been  detected  by 
their  want  of  one  or  more  of  these  marks  of  genuine- 
ness. In  this  way,  some  of  the  alleged  plays  of 
Shakspeare,  and  Plautus,  and  alleged  odes  of  Horace, 
have  been  proved  to  be  apocryphal.  A  simple  illus- 
tration will  make  this  subject  clear.  Suppose  that  a 
book  was  discovered,  which  claimed  to  have  been 
written  on  this  continent  one  hundred  years  ago ;  but, 
upon  examination,  it  was  found  to  contain  allusions 
to  republican  institutions  as  then  existing  here,  and 
also  spoke  of  railroads,  telegraphs,  daguerreotype  pic- 
tures, &c,  as  common  objects  of  observation.  We 
would  know  at  once  that  the  claim  of  antiquity  by 


OF   CHRIST.  17 

such  a  book  was  absurd  and  preposterous.  There  are 
almost  numberless  instances  on  record,  of  the  detection, 
by  anachronisms  of  this  sort,  of  the  most  carefully 
contrived  frauds.  No  writer  of  fiction  has  ever  yet 
been  found,  whose  portraiture  of  a  previous  age  was 
faithful  in  all  its  minutiae.  Scott,  with  all  his  genius, 
failed  here.  Even  a  cursory  examination  of  "The 
Betrothed,"  and  "The  Crusaders,"  will  satisfy  any 
impartial  reader  of  this  fact.  If,  then,  we  find  that 
the  four  Evangelists  have  made  no  mistakes  in  their 
allusions  to  local  circumstances,  to  the  character  of 
the  people  then  living,  to  the  geography  of  the  coun- 
try, to  the  language  spoken,  and  the  manners  and 
customs -prevailing  there;  if  in  all  these  and  other 
particulars  we  find  their  narratives  in  strict  harmony 
with  the  character  of  the  age  in  which  they  profess  to 
have  been  written,  we  may  be  sure  that  the  claim  is 
trustworthy  and  reliable. 

If,  then,  the  conditions  of  the  second  test  be  com- 
plied with,  it  is  demonstrated  that  the  four  Gospels 
were  WTitten  at  the  very  time  they  purport  to  have 
been  written.  If  the  conditions  of  the  first  test  be 
complied  with,  it  is  demonstrated  that  there  was  no 
collusion  among  the  writers;  and,  therefore,  their 
substantial  agreement  without  collusion,  proves  that 
their  independent  statements  must  be,  cannot  be 
otherwise  than  true. 


0* 


18  THE   CRUCIFIXION. 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE    EVANGELISTS   AND    THEIR    CHARACTERISTICS. 

We  will  now  consider  the  character  and  personal  his- 
tory of  the  writers  of  the  Gospels.  Matthew  was  a 
Jew  of  Galilee,  and  had  been  a  Publican,  or  tax- 
gatherer,  when  called  by  our  Lord  to  be  his  disciple. 
There  are  many  marks  about  his  narrative,  which 
show  it  to  have  been  written  for  his  countrymen,  the 
Jews.  Thus  the  manners,  customs,  peculiarities, 
cities,  towns,  and  localities  of  this  people  are  always 
spoken  of  as  well  known  to  his  readers.  The  narra- 
tive is  careful  to  trace  back  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  to 
the  tribe  of  Judah  and  house  of  David,  because  the 
Jews  knew  that  such  would  be  the  lineage  of  the 
Messiah.  It  mentions  particularly  the  birth  of  our 
Redeemer  in  Bethlehem,  because  the  Jews  well  knew 
that  the  prophets  had  pointed  it  out  as  his  birth-place. 
It  gives  more  fully  than  the  other  narratives,  the 
public  discourses  of  our  Lord,  because  the  readers  to 
whom  it  was  addressed  would  recollect  and  identify 
them.  It  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  about 
A.  D.  41,  that  is,  eight  years  after  the  ascension  of 
Christ. 

Mark  was  the  son  of  a  pious  woman,  named  Mary, 
who  dwelt  at  Jerusalem.  He  was  a  Jew,  but  not  one 
of  the  twelve  disciples.  Mark  seems  to  have  been  the 
name  which  he  received  from  the  Romans,  while  by 


OF  CHRIST.  19 

his  own  countrymen  he  was  called  John.  He  was 
"sister's  son  to  Barnabas,"  and  for  a  time  travelled 
with  his  uncle  and  Paul.  Afterwards  he  became  the 
intimate  friend  and  companion  of  Peter,  and  wrote  his 
Gospel  about  A.  D.  64,  under  the  direction  of  that 
apostle.  Many  of  the  early  Fathers  thought  that  he 
was  merely  the  amanuensis  of  Peter,  and  wrote  only 
what  he  dictated.  This  gospel  was  especially  intended 
for  the  use  of  the  Christians  at  Rome,  then  the  mis- 
tress of  the  world:  we  find,  accordingly,  few  quota- 
tions from  the  prophets,  and  few  allusions  to  Jewish 
customs  and  localities ;  and  when  these  are  made,  they 
are  always  accompanied  by  such  explanations  as  gen- 
tile readers  would  need.  Thus,  when  the  Jordan  is 
first  spoken  of,  the  word  "  river"  is  prefixed,  to  show 
what  it  was.  The  word  "corban"  is  explained  to 
mean  a  "gift."  So  "talitha,  cumi,"  is  interpreted  to 
signify  "damsel,  arise."  "The  preparation  day,"  is 
shown  to  be  "the  day  before  the  Sabbath."  In  speak- 
ing of  washing  of  hands,  Mark  says,  "For  the  Phari- 
sees, and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands 
oft,  eat  not,  holding  to  the  traditions  of  the  elders." 
This  single  sentence  is  sufficient  to  show  that  this 
Gospel  was  not  intended  for  the  Jews,  to  whom  such 
an  explanation  would  have  been  superfluous. 

Luke  was  either  a  Jew  or  a  Jewish  proselyte.  The 
former  opinion  seems  to  have  the  weight  of  authority 
on  its  side.  His  Roman  name  is  easily  accounted  for, 
upon  the  supposition  of  his  Jewish  origin ;  for  it  was 
not  uncommon  for  the  Jews  to  have  a  Latin  cognomen. 


20  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

From  the  fact  of  Luke  alone  alluding  to  the  commis- 
sion of  the  seventy  disciples,  it  has  been  conjectured 
that  he  was  one  of  that  number.  It  is  also  supposed 
that  he  was  one  of  the  two  whom  Christ  met  on  the 
way  to  Emmaus.  This  conjecture  is  founded  upon  the 
fact  that  Cleopas  is  named,  whilst  the  name  of  the 
other  is  suppressed.  Luke  was  a  physician  by  pro- 
fession, and  probably  to  that  circumstance  is  due  the 
minuteness  and  particularity  with  which  he  enters  into 
details.  Physicians,  of  all  men  in  the  world,  acquire 
a  habit  of  exactitude.  The  nicety  required  in  weigh- 
ing and  apportioning  medicine,  the  nice  discrimination 
required  in  distinguishing  allied  types  of  disease,  the 
careful  watching  to  detect  the  slightest  change  in  the 
symptoms  of  a  patient,  the  circumstantial  orders  given 
to  nurses  and  watchers  by  the  sick-bed — all  these 
things  give  medical  men  keen  powers  of  observation, 
and  a  proneness  to  notice  little  matters,  which  would 
escape  the  attention  of  others.  We  find,  accordingly, 
that  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  more  circumstantial  than 
those  of  the  remaining  three  Evangelists.  We  must 
not  forget,  too,  that  Luke  was  the  companion  of  Paul 
in  most  of  his  travels,  and  that,  according  to  a  tradi- 
tion among  the  early  Christians,  he  wrote  under  the 
supervision  of  the  great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  His 
Gospel  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  in  Greece,  a 
little  later  than  Mark's,  and  for  the  edification  of  the 
Gentile  converts.  Its  purity  and  classical  character 
prove  the  scholarship  of  the  author,  while  the  Hebrew 
and  Syriac  idioms  confirm  the  impression  that  he  was 


OF   CHRIST.  21 

a  Jew.  He  was  not  one  of  the  disciples,  however ; 
and  though  it  is  probable  that  he  was  an  eye-witness 
of  many  of  the  occurrences  which  he  relates,  the  most 
of  his  facts  were  doubtless  derived  from  the  conversa- 
tions of  Paul  and  the  apostles. 

John  was  a  Jew  of  Galilee,  the  son  of  Zebedee  and 
Salome.  This  Salome  is  supposed  to  be  a  daughter 
of  Joseph,  the  reputed  father  of  our  Lord,  by  a  former 
marriage.  If  so,  she  was  the  step-sister  of  our  Saviour, 
and  John  was  his  nephew.  The  calling  of  John  and 
his  brother  James,  together  with  that  of  Matthew, 
Andrew,  and  his  brother  Peter,  is  particularly  men- 
tioned in  the  Gospels,  while  the  other  seven  apostles 
are  not  thus  honoured.  John  was  the  only  apostle  at 
the  crucifixion,  and  to  him  our  Lord  committed  the 
care  of  his  mother,  when  he  was  about  expiring  on  the 
cross.  As  John  was  the  only  apostle  who  stood  by 
his  suffering  Saviour,  so  he  was  the  first  of  them  at 
the  sepulchre,  and  the  first  to  believe  in  the  resurrec- 
tion. He  was  of  a  loving  and  lovable  disposition, 
and  was  emphatically  the  beloved  disciple.  Owing 
probably  to  his  intimate  communion  with  our  Saviour, 
he  loves  to  dwell  upon  and  recount  the  precious  pri- 
vate conversations  of  his  glorious  Master.  These  he 
treasured  up  with  as  much  care  as  did  Matthew  the 
public  discourses.  It  is  thought  that  John  wrote  his 
Gospel  about  A.  D.  97,  or  more  than  twenty-five  years 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  By  this  time  many 
heresiarchs  had  crept  iiito  the  Church,  and  some  had 
boldly  denied  the  divinity  of  our  Lord.     The  great 


22  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

burden,  then,  of  John's  narrative  is  to  prove  that 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  "God  manifest  in  the  flesh." 
He  introduces  his  narrative  with  this  sublime  doctrine, 
and  he  never  loses  sight  of  it  from  beginning  to  end. 
We  must  not  suppose,  however,  that  he  taught  this 
glorious  truth  more  clearly  or  more  emphatically  than 
our  Saviour  himself  had  done  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  (See  Matt.  vii.  21-24.)  Nor  yet  much  more 
explicitly  than  John  the  Baptist  had  proclaimed  it 
before  the  assembled  multitudes  of  Israel,  on  the  banks 
of  the  Jordan.  The  Evangelist  sought  merely  to 
restate,  reaffirm,  arid  impress  upon  his  readers  a  doc- 
trine so  essential  to  vital  Christianity,  but  which  had 
been  ignored  by  a  large  body  of  professed  believers. 

Briefly,  Matthew  wrote  especially  for  his  country- 
men, the  Jews,  and  it  is  probable  even  that  he  wrote 
in  Hebrew.  He  gives  us  the  public  addresses  of  our 
Saviour  more  fully  than  the  other  three  Evangelists. 
Mark  wrote  under  the  direction  of  Peter,  especially 
for  the  Romans.  Luke  wrote  under  Paul's  direction, 
especially  for  the  edification  of  the  churches  that  this 
apostle  had  planted  in  Greece  and  Asia  Minor.  He 
is  distinguished  for  his  attention  to  minute  particulars 
in  regard  to  time,  place,  and  events.  John  attends 
more  to  doctrine  than  to  facts,  and  dwells  more  upon 
the  private  character  and  social  conversation  of  the 
Saviour  with  his  disciples,  than  upon  his  public  acts 
and  speeches. 


OP   CHRIST.  23 


CHAPTER  III. 

JESUS    WARNS    HIS    DISCIPLES TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FOUR 

EVANGELISTS. 

Having  made  these  preliminary  remarks,  we  are  now 
prepared  to  compare  the  statements  of  Luke  with 
those  of  the  other  Evangelists;  and  for  the  con- 
venience of  the  reader,  we  propose  to  place  a  figure 
on  the  margin,  whenever  we  discover  a  mark  of  truth 
in  the  narrative,  made  by  an  incidental  and  undesigned 
coincidence,  or  in  any  of  the  modes  above  indicated. 
These  marginal  figures  will  show  when  a  point  is 
made,  and  will  at  the  same  time  give  the  number  of 
points  made  up  to  the  place  under  consideration. 

We  will  begin  our  investigation  with  the  31st  verse 
of  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  Luke.  We  there 
read,  "And  the  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon,  behold, 
Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you 
as  wheat,"  &c.  To  this  Peter  replies,  "Lord,  I  am 
ready  to  go  with  thee,  both  into  prison  and  to  death." 
The  abruptness  and  evident  incompleteness  of  our 
Saviour's  address  show  plainly  that  we  have  reported 
here  the  mere  fragment  of  a  conversation.  The  sin- 
gularity too  of  Peter's  reply  proves  the  same  thing. 
Why  does  he  speak  of  going  with  his  Master  ?  Had 
Jesus  spoken  of  going  anywhere,  that  it  was  thus 
necessary  to  show  his  attachment  by  avowing  his 
determination  to  go  with  him  ?     On  turning  to  the 


24  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

parallel  passages  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  we  find  a 
partial  explanation  of  what  seems  strange  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Christ,  and  the  answer  of  his  disciple.  We 
there  learn,  that  our  Saviour  had  introduced  the  con- 
versation by  telling  his  disciples  that  the  prophecy 
was  about  to  be  fulfilled,  in  reference  to  the  smiting 
of  the  shepherd  and  the  scattering  of  the  sheep.  We 
might  have  inferred  from  these  statements,  that  the 
ardent  and  impetuous  Peter  had,  in  reply  to  this 
announcement,  solemnly  expressed  his  determination 
to  abide  with  the  shepherd,  and  go  with  him  whither- 
soever he  went,  and  not  be  scattered  with  the  flock. 
But  John  leaves  us  no  room  to  doubt  how  Peter  got 
the  idea  of  going  into  his  mind.  We  read  in  this  Evan- 
gelist, "  Whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come.  .  .  .  Simon 
Peter  said  unto  him,  Lord,  whither  goest  thou  ?  Jesus 
answered  him,  Whither  I  go,  thou  canst  not  follow 
me  now,  but  thou  shalt  follow  me  afterwards.  Peter 
said  unto  him,  Lord,  why  cannot  I  follow  thee  now  ? 
I  am  ready  to  lay  down  my  life  for  thy  sake." 

1.  We  have  in  these  corresponding  statements,  just 
that  sort  of  agreement  which  would  weigh  most  with 
an  intelligent  jury.  One  of  the  witnesses  uses  an 
expression  which  needs  some  explanation,  two  others 
throw  some  light  upon  it,  while  a  fourth  relieves  it 
entirely  from  all  mystery  and  strangeness. 

Christ  replies  to  the  strong  profession  of  attachment 
by  Peter,  "  I  tell  thee,  Peter,  the  cock  shall  not  crow 
this  day,  before  that  thou  shalt  thrice  deny  that  thou 
knowest  me."     As  it  was  already  night  when  this 


OF   CHRIST.  25 

was  said,  it  is  plain  that  the  word  day  is  here  used  in 
the  sense  of  shortly,  in  a  little  while.  John  does  not 
specify  any  time  at  all.  Matthew  says,  "  This  night, 
before  the  cock  crow,  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice." 
And  Mark  makes  plain  what  was  meant  by  the  word 
"day."  His  account  is,  "This  day,  even  in  this 
night,  before  the  cock  crows  twice,  thou  shalt  deny 
me  thrice." 

2.  An  apparently  objectionable  phrase  in  Luke  fur- 
nishes thus  the  occasion  of  showing  that  the  gospel 
narratives  agree  in  regard  to  the  fact,  but  employ 
different  language  to  relate  that  fact.  And  this  is 
just  the  sort  of  testimony  that  carries  with  it  the  most 
sure  conviction  of  its  truth. 

But  we  notice  here  an  apparent  discrepancy,  which 
makes  another  point  of  greater  importance  in  favour 
of  the  reliability  of  the  witnesses.  Matthew,  Luke, 
and  John  mention  but  one  crowing  of  the  cock :  "Be- 
fore the  cock  crow,  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice."  Mark, 
on  the  other  hand,  says,  "Before  the  cock  crow  twice, 
thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice."  Now,  remembering  that 
Mark  wrote  under  the  direction  of  Peter,  and  that 
poor  Peter  would  be  more  likely  than  the  other  disci- 
ples to  recollect  the  very  words  of  our  Saviour,  we 
will  have  no  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  seeming  differ- 
ences. Suppose  that  in  a  case  of  assault  and  battery, 
three  of  the  witnesses  swore  that  they  saw  a  man 
struck,  without  saying  whether  he  was  struck  once  or 
twice ;  but  the  man  himself,  when  put  upon  the  stand, 
swore  to  having  received  two  blows. 
3 


26  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

3.  Would  not  the  difference  in  evidence  confirm  the 
truth  of  the  fact  of  the  man  having  been  struck,  by 
showing  that  there  had  been  no  previous  understand- 
ing between  him  and  the  other  three  ? 

By  turning  to  the  epistles  of  Peter,  we  find  nu- 
merous incidental  allusions  to  his  fall;  and  we  may 
probably  learn  from  them,  too,  what  our  Saviour 
meant  by  saying  to  him,  "  When  thou  art  converted, 
strengthen  thy  brethren."  The  word  "converted" 
means,  literally,  turned.  Peter  needed  to  be  converted 
or  turned  from  his  overweening  self-confidence,  and 
needed  to  learn  the  great  lesson,  to  trust  in  God  alone 
for  power  to  resist  temptation.  His  writings  show 
that  his  fall  did  turn  him  from  self-boasting  and  self- 
reliance,  and  did  teach  him  to  lean  for  support  upon 
the  Almighty  Arm.  Hear  his  language:  "Who  are 
kept  by  the  power  of  God,  through  faith,  unto  salva- 
tion." "Pass  the  time  of  your  sojourning  here  in 
fear."  "That  your  faith  and  hope  might  be  in  God." 
"  For  all  flesh  is  as  grass,  and  all  the  glory  of  man  as 
the  flower  of  the  grass.  The  grass  withereth,  and  the 
flower  thereof  falleth  away.  But  the  word  of  the  Lord 
endureth  for  ever."  "He  that  believeth  on  him 
(Christ)  shall  not  be  confounded."  "Commit  their 
souls  unto  him,  as  unto  a  faithful  Creator."  "For 
God  resisteth  the  proud,  and  giveth  grace  to  the 
humble.  Humble  yourselves,  therefore,  under  the 
mighty  hand  of  God,  that  he  may  exalt  you  in  due 
time."  "According  as  his  divine  power  hath  given  us 
all  things  that  pertain  unto  life  and  godliness."     "  The 


OF   CHRIST.  27 

Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of  tempta- 
tion." How  different  is  all  this  from  the  proud  and 
boastful  exclamation,  "  Though  all  men  shall  be 
offended  because  of  thee,  yet  will  I  never  be  offended." 
Ah,  Peter  had  found  out,  that  "  He  who  trusteth  in 
his  own  heart  is  a  fool."  And  how  feelingly  does  the 
recollection  of  the  victory  won  by  Satan,  by  playing 
upon  his  false  trust,  make  him  warn  us  against  the 
wiles  of  the  great  adversary  of  souls:  "Be  sober,  be 
vigilant,  because  your  adversary  the  devil,  as  a  roar- 
ing lion  walketh  about  seeking  whom  he  may  devour." 
"Beloved,  think  it  not  strange  concerning  the  fiery 
trial,  which  is  to  try  you,  as  though  some  strange 
thing  happened  unto  you."  "  That  the  trial  of  your 
faith  being  much  more  precious  than  that  of  gold 
which  perisheth,  though  it  be  tried  by  fire,  might  be 
found  unto  praise,  and  honour,  and  glory,  at  the 
appearance  of  Jesus  Christ." 

4.  These  incidental  allusions  of  Peter  to  trial  and 
temptation,  are  strong  proofs  of  the  truth  of  the  nar- 
rative in  regard  to  his  denial  of  his  Master ;  and  their 
deep-toned  humility  shows,  too,  that  he  had  learned 
to  "put  no  confidence  in  the  flesh,"  and  to  rely  solely 
upon  the  sustaining  grace  of  God. 

The  honesty  of  Matthew  is  made  apparent  by  his 
relating  a  circumstance  not  noticed  by  Luke  and  John, 
and  one  by  no  means  creditable  to  himself.  Mark 
tells  us,  that  when  Peter  had  solemnly  declared  that 
he  would  die  rather  than  deny  his  Master,  "all  the 
disciples  said  so  likewise."    Matthew  records  this  fact 


28  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

also;  and  it  is  remarkable  that  he  and  Mark  alone 
tell  us  of  the  flight  of  all  the  disciples  at  the  time  of 
the  arrest  of  our  Saviour.  We  thus  have  shown  the 
great  candour  of  Matthew  in  mentioning  his  disgrace- 
ful desertion  of  his  Master,  notwithstanding  his  volun- 
tary promise  to  cling  to  him. 

5.  We  need  scarcely  say,  that  a  like  candour  in  a 
witness  would  strongly  impress  the  court  with  the 
fairness  and  impartiality  of  his  testimony. 

The  omission  by  Luke  and  John,  of  the  joint  decla- 
ration of  all  the  disciples,  is  readily  explained.  Luke 
not  being  a  disciple,  nor  yet  writing  under  the  direc- 
tion of  a  disciple,  may  never  have  heard  of  it ;  and 
even  if  he  had,  he  naturally  would  not  attach  so  much 
importance  to  the  declaration  as  those  who  made  it. 
John,  in  common  honesty,  could  not  have  recorded 
the  declaration,  without  also  recording  how  little  it 
was  regarded.  And  the  latter  he  could  not  do  without 
self-praise ;  for  it  appears  from  his  narrative,  that  he 
fled  but  a  little  way  and  then  returned,  and  accompa- 
nied our  Lord  to  the  palace  of  Caiaphas.  We  find, 
accordingly,  that  he  mentions  neither  the  profession 
of  devotion  by  the  whole  body  of  disciples,  nor  yet 
their  flight  at  the  first  appearance  of  danger. 

6.  It  may  be  well  to  notice  here,  that  though 
neither  Luke  nor  John  expressly  mentions  the  flight 
of  the  disciples,  they  allude  to  it  incidentally  as  a 
fact.  Luke  says,  "And  Peter  followed  afar  off," 
when  they  were  conducting  Christ  to  the  high-priest. 
John  says,   "And  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus,  and  so 


OF   CHRIST.  29 

did  another  disciple."  Of  course  it  would  be  absurd 
to  call  attention  to  the  following  of  one  or  two  disci- 
ples, if  all  had  followed.  The  special  allusion  of  Luke 
to  Peter  following,  shows  that  he  had  in  his  mind  the 
absence  of  the  other  disciples,  though  he  does  not 
mention  it  in  so  many  words.  So  in  like  manner,  the 
reference  of  John  to  himself  and  Peter  as  following  in 
the  distance,  would  be  wholly  unmeaning,  if  others 
had  followed  as  well  as  they.  We  have  then  here  the 
very  strongest  sort  of  proof  of  the  integrity  of  the 
witnesses.  Two  of  them  speak  of  an  incident  as 
having  occurred ;  while  the  other  two,  without  making 
any  direct  allusion  to  it,  employ  such  language  as 
satisfies  us  that  they  were  fully  apprized  of  it. 

We  propose  to  give,  at  the  proper  place,  an  expla- 
nation of  the  omission  by  three  of  the  Evangelists,  to 
notice  John  following  the  mob  that  arrested  his  Lord 
and  Master.  In  the  mean  time,  we  will  pursue  the 
order  of  events  as  recorded  by  Luke.  With  his  usual 
particularity,  this  writer  relates  in  the  35th  and  three 
following  verses,  a  conversation  not  recorded  by  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  or  John.  We  read,  "And  he  said  unto 
them,  When  I  sent  you  without  purse,  and  scrip,  and 
shoes,  lacked  ye  anything  ?  And  they  said,  Nothing. 
Then  said  he  unto  them,  But  now,  he  that  hath  a 
purse,  let  him  take  it,  and  likewise  his  scrip ;  and  he 
that  hath  no  sword,  let  him  sell  his  garment,  and  buy 
one."  As  we  understand  these  verses,  the  Saviour 
did  not  refer  to  any  present  exigency,  but  meant 
nothing  more  than  to  tell  his  disciples  that  they  had 
3* 


30  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

hitherto  been  under  his  special  care,  and  had  been 
preserved  by  him  from  temporal  want  and  personal 
danger;  hereafter,  however,  they  must  expect  to  be 
thrown,  in  a  measure,  upon  their  own  resources,  and 
must  learn  to  provide  for  their  own  subsistence,  and 
their  own  security,  by  their  individual  prudence  and 
courage.  Perhaps  his  caution  was  not  meant  so  much 
for  them  as  for  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  after  the 
apostolic  age,  when  miraculous  interposition  should 
cease  altogether.  These  "children  of  the  light"  are 
here  taught  to  be  "wise  in  their  generation,"  like 
"the  children  of  this  world;"  and  are  exhorted  to 
practice  that  economy,  that  prudence,  and  that  indif- 
ference to  danger,  which  secures  success  in  all  avoca- 
tions in  life.  But  from  the  reply  of  the  disciples,  it 
is  plain  that  they  totally  misunderstood  their  glorious 
Teacher,  and  supposed  that  he  was  directing  them  to 
prepare  for  an  impending  attack.  "And  they  said, 
Lord,  behold,  here  are  two  swords;"  and  he  said,  "It 
is  enough."  The  answer  of  Christ  ("It  is  enough") 
ought  to  have  convinced  them,  when  they  saw  the 
immense  host  that  came  out  from  the  chief  priests  and 
elders,  that  he  did  not  mean  for  them  to  resist  his 
arrest.  What  could  two  poor  swords  effect  against  an 
armed  band,  which  included  in  it  some  of  the  trained 
warriors  of  Rome?  But  it  seems  that  the  delusion 
was  kept  up  to  the  last,  and  that  Peter  actually  drew 
his  sword,  and  cut  off  the  right  ear  of  one  of  the  assail- 
ants. The  point  to  which  we  wish  to  call  the  reader's 
special  attention  is  this:    all  the  Evangelists  record 


OF   CHRIST.  31 

Peter's  mad  assault  upon  the  guard  sent  to  seize 
Christ,  while  there  is  but  one  of  them  (Luke)  who 
throws  any  light  upon  an  act,  apparently  so  singular 
and  so  absurd.  The  conversation  related  by  Luke 
explains  Peter's  conduct  most  satisfactorily,  and  shows 
that  he  believed  he  was  acting  under  his  Master's 
order,  and  doubtless  expected  aid  from  the  Almighty 
arm  of  Him  whom  he  had  declared,  a  little  while  before, 
to  be  "the  Christ  of  God."  Now  suppose  that  Luke's 
Gospel  had  never  been  written,  would  not  Peter's 
abortive  defence  seem  a  most  unlikely  and  incredible 
thing  ?  Would  it  not  seem  not  merely  foolish  in  itself, 
but  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  a  disci- 
ple of  him  who  constantly  taught,  "I  say  unto  you, 
resist  not  evil"?  But,  blessed  be  God,  the  transaction 
which  seems  so  strange  in  the  records  of  three  of  the 
Evangelists,  appears  in  the  annals  of  the  fourth  as 
nothing  more  than  the  obedience  of  a  good  soldier  of 
the  cross  to  an  order  from  the  Captain  of  his  salva- 
tion. 

7.  We  can  scarcely  conceive  of  a  stronger  form 
of  argument  than  is  presented  here  by  a  comparison 
of  the  four  narratives.  Three  of  the  witnesses  depose 
to  a  fact  which  seems  highly  improbable ;  but  a  fourth 
lets  fall,  as  it  were  by  accident,  a  remark  which 
changes  its  entire  aspect,  and  makes  it  seem  reasona- 
ble, right,  and  proper.  Now  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
the  explanation  of  Luke  is  just  of  the  character  here 
described.  He  does  not  relate  the  conversation  above 
quoted,  as  a  solution  of  the  mystery  of  Peter's  foolish 


32  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

attack.  It  is  not  even  mentioned  in  the  same  con- 
nection. Surely  we  hazard  nothing  in  saying  that 
such  a  nice  adaptation,  fitting  in,  dovetailing,  as  it 
were,  of  testimony,  would  satisfy  any  court  in  Chris- 
tendom, of  the  perfect  credibility  of  the  witnesses. 
Ought  not  infidelity  to  hide  its  head,  and,  at  least, 
affect  a  blush  of  shame  ? 


CHAPTER  IV. 


JESUS    IN    GETHSEMANE. 


The  next  verses  in  order  read  thus:  "And  he  came 
out,  and  went,  as  he  was  wont,  to  the  Mount  of  Olives ; 
and  his  disciples  also  followed  him.  And  when  he 
was  at  the  place,  he  said  unto  them,  Pray,  that  ye 
enter  not  into  temptation." 

We  have  a  topographical  agreement  between  the 
Evangelists,  in  regard  to  the  place  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ing, which  is  both  curious  and  interesting,  as  showing 
that  they  made  no  mistakes,  even  in  unimportant 
matters  of  locality.  The  Mount  of  Olives,  it  is  well 
known,  was  a  hill  of  considerable  height,  on  the  east 
of  Jerusalem  and  separated  from  it  by  the  valley  of 
Jehoshaphat,  through  which  flowed  the  brook  Kedron. 
This  elevation  derived  its  name  from  the  luxuriant 
growth  of  olive  trees,  which  covered  it  to  its  very 
summit.  Now  we  notice  in  the  verses  above,  that 
Luke  spoke  of  Christ  and  his  disciples  coming  to  some 


OF   CHRIST.  33 

place,  whose  name  is  not  given,  but  which  must  have 
been  on  or  near  the  Mount  of  Olives.  Matthew  and 
Mark  both  tell  us  that  Christ,  on  the  memorable 
night  of  his  betrayal,  went  with  his  disciples  to  this 
mountain,  and  that  they  "came  to  a  place  called  Geth- 
semane."  We  have  now  the  name  of  the  place,  but 
still  we  do  not  know  what  sort  of  a  place  it  was. 
John  however  supplies  the  needed  information ;  "He 
went  forth  with  his  disciples  over  the  brook  Kedron, 
where  was  a  garden."  We  thus  learn  that  a  garden 
was  the  spot  chosen  by  our  precious  Redeemer,  for 
his  conflict  with  the  powers  of  darkness.  As  the  first 
Adam  sinned  and  fell  in  a  garden,  may  not  the 
agony  of  the  second  Adam  in  this  other  garden  have 
been  specially  intended  to  atone  for  original  sin,  the 
natural  depravity  of  our  natures,  while  the  suffering 
on  the  cross  was  to  atone  for  our  actual  transgres- 
sions? His  mysterious  struggle  in  Gethsemane  with 
the  invisible  spirits  of  hell,  would  then  seem  to  pur- 
chase for  the  child  of  God,  strength  for  secret  wrest- 
ling with  those  dark  and  malignant  passions  and  appe- 
tites, which  he  has  inherited  from  his  great  progenitor. 
And  his  dreadful  anguish  on  the  cross  in  the  broad 
face  of  day,  in  the  presence  of  a  multitude  of  behold- 
ers, may  have  gained  for  the  believer,  ability  to  over- 
come open  temptation  in  his  intercourse  with  a  sinful 
world.  However,  the  object  of  our  attention  just  now 
is  the  substantial  agreement  of  the  Evangelists  in 
regard  to  the  place  of  the  betrayal,  without  their 
employing  the  same  words  to  designate  it.     The  first 


34  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

three  mention  the  walk  towards  the  Mount  of  Olives. 
John,  on  the  other  hand,  says  nothing  about  this 
mountain;  but  tells  us  of  their  crossing  the  brook 
Kedron ;  which  perfectly  harmonizes  with  the  other 
narratives,  because  the  mountain  could  not  be  reached 
from  Jerusalem  without  crossing  the  brook.  Again, 
we  notice  that  Luke  mentions  a  particular  place 
visited,  Matthew  and  Mark  tell  its  name,  and  John 
what  it  was. 

8.  The  omitting  by  some  of  the  witnesses  and  sup- 
plying by  others,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  the 
whole  intelligible,  ought  to  impress  us  most  forcibly 
with  the  honesty  and  truthfulness  of  them  all. 

But  the  verses  above  present  another  point  worthy 
of  consideration.  We  learn  from  Matthew  and  Mark 
that  Judas  left  our  Saviour  and  his  disciples  eating 
the  passover,  and  went  straight  to  the  chief  priests 
and  elders.  It  was  then  night ;  how  did  he  know  where 
to  find  his  victim  when  he  returned?  Matthew  and 
Mark  give  us  no  hint  whatever  upon  the  subject. 
Luke  tells  us  that  Christ  "went,  as  he  was  wont,  to 
the  Mount  of  Olives."  That  is  better,  but  still  not 
quite  satisfactory.  It  designates  no  particular  place, 
where  Judas  might  expect  his  much  injured  Master. 
John,  however,  is  very  explicit.  "And  Judas  also, 
which  betrayed  him,  knew  the  place,  for  Jesus  often 
resorted  thither  with  his  disciples." 

9.  And  thus  we  find  one  witness  supplementing  a 
deficiency  in  the  testimony  of  the  rest,  and  giving  a 
satisfactory  answer  to  a  very  natural  question,  which 


OF   CHRIST.  35 

might  have  arisen  after  hearing  their  evidence.  And 
yet  John  does  this  in  such  an  off-hand  manner,  that  it 
is  impossible  to  suspect  him  of  being  conscious  of  the 
vacuum,  which  he  was  filling  up. 

Before  closing  this  part  of  the  subject,  it  may  be 
well  to  remove  a  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  some. 
Why  was  it  necessary  to  hire  a  traitor  at  all  ?  Since 
Christ  so  often  taught  in  the  temple,  and  openly 
everywhere,  why  not  arrest  him  in  public?  Why 
employ  a  villain  to  track  him  in  the  darkness  of  the 
night,  to  some  secluded  spot,  away  from  the  busy 
haunts  of  men  ?  By  going  a  little  back  in  the  narra- 
tive, all  difficulty  will  be  removed.  Matthew  and 
Mark  tell  us  that  the  chief  priests  and  elders  sought 
to  kill  Jesus,  "but  they  said,  not  on  the  feast-day, 
lest  there  be  an  uproar  among  the  people."  And 
Luke  tells  us  in  like  manner,  that  these  malicious 
wretches  "feared  the  people."  Hence  they  sought 
opportunity  to  slay  him  in  private.  To  accomplish 
his  arrest,  "  they  had  given  a  commandment,  that  if 
any  man  knew  where  he  were,  he  should  show  it,  that 
they  might  take  him."  John  xi.  57.  Failing  of  pro- 
curing from  any  one  such  information  as  would  enable 
them  to  make  a  secret  arrest,  they  gladly  accepted  of 
Judas's  proffered  services  as  a  traitor.  But  they 
exacted  from  him  the  promise  to  betray  Christ  "in 
the  absence  of  the  multitude."  It  would  seem,  too, 
that  they  were  afraid  to  attempt  to  take  Christ  in  the 
city,  even  at  night,  thinking  probably  that  his  disci- 
ples would  stir  up  a  tumult,  and  have  him  rescued. 


36  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

The  great  thing  with  them,  then,  was  to  lay  hands 
upon  him  at  night,  beyond  the  walls  of  Jerusalem. 
Their  hope  of  accomplishing  this  object  was  strength- 
ened by  their  knowledge  of  Christ's  habit  of  retiring 
into  the  country  to  pray.     For 

"Cold  mountains  and  the  midnight  air, 
Witnessed  the  fervour  of  his  prayer." 

And  it  would  seem  from  John,  that  he  often  visited 
Gethsemane  at  night,  for  purposes  of  devotion.  We 
now  see  how  admirably  fitted  Judas  was  to  carry  out 
the  hellish  designs  of  the  Jews.  Being  a  disciple,  he 
would  excite  no  suspicion  of  a  spy  by  his  presence, 
and  he  could  watch  every  movement  of  his  Master, 
and  steal  off  to  tell  the  chief  priests  and  elders,  when 
he  was  going  out  of  Jerusalem  by  night,  attended  only 
by  his  eleven  disciples. 

10.  The  hiring  of  Judas,  it  will  thus  be  seen,  con- 
stitutes an  argument  for  the  credibility  of  the  Gospels. 
It  is  a  fact  referred  to  by  all,  and  explained  by  none ; 
and  which  can  only  be  understood  by  a  careful  colla- 
tion of  their  joint  testimony. 

The  next  verses  (41st  and  42d)  are  in  these  words : 
"And  he  was  withdrawn  from  them  about  a  stone's 
cast,  and  kneeled  down  and  prayed,  saying,  Father, 
if  thou  be  willing,  remove  this  cup  from  me ;  never- 
theless, not  my  will,  but  thine  be  done." 

By  examining  the  parallel  passages  in  Matthew  and 
Mark,  we  ascertain  that  Christ  took  with  him  Peter, 
and  James,  and  John,  apart  from  the  other  eight  dis- 


OF   CHRIST.  37 

ciples.  We  also  ascertain  that  his  withdrawal  "about 
a  stone's  cast  from  them,"  refers  to  his  separation 
from  the  three  disciples,  and  not  from  the  eight,  who 
must  have  been  at  a  still  greater  distance  from  him. 
Peter,  and  James,  and  John  were  honoured  on  two 
other  occasions  in  the  same  sj3ecial  manner  as  on  this. 
They  alone  of  the  twelve  disciples  were  permitted  to 
witness  the  raising  of  Jairus's  daughter,  and  the  trans- 
figuration of  our  blessed  Redeemer.  We  know  no 
reason- why  Luke  omits  to  mention  the  selection  of  the 
three  disciples  to  attend  their  Master  in  his  agony  in 
the  garden ;  and  the  omission  is  the  more  remarkable 
in  so  circumstantial  a  writer,  who  too  had  promised, 
at  the  very  beginning  of  his  narrative,  "  to  write  in 
order."  We  know,  however,  good  reasons  why  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  did  not  omit  to  mention  this  selection. 
Matthew  was  one  of  the  eight  not  distinguished  by 
this  mark  of  favour,  and  of  course  he  would  not  be 
likely  to  forget  the  occasion.  It  is  a  strong  proof  of 
his  integrity  as  a  witness,  that  he  adverts  to  a  slight 
upon  himself  with  so  much  candour  and  simplicity. 
And  as  to  Mark,  it  is  plain  that  he  could  not  pass 
over  an  occurrence  which  he  had  doubtless  heard 
Peter  speak  of  so  often,  and  which,  being  of  such 
peculiar  interest  to  his  guide  and  preceptor,  would 
almost  appear  personal  to  himself. 

11.  We  thus  have  fulfilled  one  of  the  tests  of  the 
credibility  of  evidence,  viz.  the  relation  by  some  of 
the  witnesses,  of  a  fact  in  which  they  had  a  personal 
4 


38  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

interest,  and  the  omission  of  it  by  others  who  had  no 
such  interest. 

But  to  this  it  may  be  objected,  that  John  was  one 
of  the  three  honoured  by  our  Saviour  at  Gethsemane, 
and  that  he  makes  no  allusion  to  it  whatever.  To  this 
we  answer,  neither  does  he  mention  the  other  two 
occasions  in  which  he  enjoyed  the  gracious  preference 
of  his  Master.  His  complete  silence  in  reference  to 
these  tokens  of  approbation  may  have  been  due  to  his 
modesty.  Or  we  may  find  an  explanation  in  the  scope 
and  design  of  his  Gospel,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was 
to  record  the  private  conversations,  rather  than  the 
public  speeches  of  our  Saviour — the  doctrines  taught, 
rather  than  the  deeds  performed  by  him.  But  what- 
ever the  motive  for  silence  may  have  been,  here  is  the 
fact  of  one  witness  (Matthew)  giving  the  details  of  a 
circumstance  to  his  own  disparagement,  and  of  another 
witness  (John)  suppressing  three  which  redounded  to 
his  honour. 

12.  Would  not  this  honesty  on  the  part  of  one,  and 
absence  of  self-seeking  on  the  part  of  the  other,  con- 
vince any  court  that  it  was  dealing  with  true  and 
reliable  men? 

But  there  is  another  point  of  greater  importance  in 
this  connection,  which  deserves  our  consideration. 
John  says  not  one  word  about  the  agony  in  the 
garden,  nor  about  the  mocking  and  buffeting  in  the 
palace  of  the  high-priest,  nor  yet  about  the  fearful 
anguish  on  the  cross,  which  found  utterance  in  the 
cry,  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me!" 


OF   CHRIST.  39 

Why  is  John   silent  in  regard  to  these  momentous 
occurrences  ?     The  answer  is  to  be  found  in  the  cha- 
racter of  the  witness.     The  writings  of  John,  and  the 
testimony  of  the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church,  show 
him  to  have  been  a  man  of  the  nicest  and  tenderest 
sensibilities,  full  of  sympathy  with  the  sufferings  of 
others,  burning  with  love  to  his  fellow-creatures,  and 
ardently  attached  to  the   Master  who  loved  him  so 
well.     How  could  a  man  with  such  a  temperament, 
and  such  a  disposition,  dwell  upon  the  blood}7  sweat  in 
the  garden,  the  cruel  scenes  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas, 
and  the  hiding  of  the  Father's  face  upon  Calvary? 
0  no !  he  could  not  have  written  upon  these  subjects 
without  doing  violence  to  his  feelings,  violence  to  his 
nature,  and  violence  to  his  loving  heart.     A  record 
from  him  of  these  dreadful  things  would  be  utterly 
inconsistent  with  all  that  we  know  of  his  writings, 
preaching,  conversation  and  life.     It  was  sufficient  for 
him  to  tell  us  of  the  essential,  glorious  truths,  that 
"  Jesus  Christ  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  was 
raised  again  for  our  justification."     And  so  we  have, 
in  the  very  omissions  of  John,  the  strongest  possible 
proof  of  the  credibility  of  his  narrative.     The  numer- 
ous books  of  travels  in  Europe  furnish  a  happy  illus- 
tration of  the  point  we  are  attempting  to  make.     One 
writer  abounds  in  statistics ;  another  describes  works 
of  modern  art;  a  third,  the  monuments  of  antiquity 
still  existing,  or  the  ruins  that  are  left  of  them;  a 
fourth,  the  geological  formations  and  natural  scenery 
of  the  country  through  which  he  passed.     And  when 


40  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

we  have  read  the  book  of  one  of  these  travellers,  we 
will  have  no  difficulty  in  recognizing  in  a  second  work 
from  him,  not  only  the  same  style  and  manner,  the 
same  peculiarities  of  expression,  but  also  attention  to 
the  same  class  of  facts.  These  all  show  the  idiosyn- 
crasy of  the  man,  the  particular  bent  of  his  mind,  and 
his  way  of  looking  at  things.  And  unless  the  man 
undergo  an  entire  change  in  his  own  character,  the 
characteristics  of  his  writings  will  be  unaltered.  And 
in  fact,  we  find  that  the  earliest  and  latest  produc- 
tions, even  of  those  writers  who  have  lived  long,  and 
written  at  long  intervals  apart,  bear  the  same  distinc- 
tive peculiarities. 

If  we  were  shown  a  book  of  travels,  claiming 
to  be  from  the  pen  of  the  great  traveller  and  phy- 
sical geographer,  Yon  Humboldt,  but  which,  upon 
examination,  proved  to  be  full  of  maudlin  sentiment 
and  romantic  legends  concerning  the  places  visited, 
we  would  at  once  pronounce  the  book  to  be  spurious. 
We  know  that  Humboldt  does  not  deal  in  such  stuff 
as  this  book  contains,  and  therefore  it  is  not  his.  But 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  book  was  replete  with  just 
that  class  of  facts  which  we  know  receives  the  atten- 
tion of  the  illustrious  German,  then  we  would  receive 
it  as  his  production,  though  we  had  never  heard  of  it 
before.  Now  apply  this  test  to  John's  narrative.  We 
find  it  containing  just  those  things  we  would  expect  it 
to  contain,  and  suppressing  just  those  things  we  would 
expect  it  to  suppress. 

13.    The   authenticity   of  John's    Gospel   is   thus 


OF   CHRIST.  41 

established,  and  its  establishment  by  internal  evidence 
is  a  virtual  demonstration  of  its  credibility. 

Did  the  design  of  our  argument  permit,  we  would 
love  to  dwell  upon  the  submissive,  uncomplaining 
prayer  of  the  Man  of  Sorrow,  "Not  my  will,  but  thine 
be  done."  It  may  be  permitted  to  us  however  to  say, 
that  if  the  second  Person  of  the  adorable  Trinity,  the 
Creator,  submitted  to  mocking,  buffeting,  and  a  death 
of  shame  at  the  hands  of  his  own  creatures,  in  order 
that  the  will  of  the  Father  might  be  fulfilled,  surely  it 
becomes  the  child  of  God  to  bow  with  equal  submis- 
sion to  all  trials,  afflictions,  and  bereavements  sent 
upon  him  by  the  glorious  three  in  one,  Father,  Re- 
deemer, and  Sanctifier. 

The  prayer  of  Christ  is  given  in  nearly  the  same 
words  by  the  first  three  Evangelists,  but  is  left  out  by 
John,  since  he  does  not  allude  at  all  to  the  agony  in 
the  garden.  But  John  mentions  the  prayer  of  our 
Saviour  on  another  occasion,  which  is  substantially 
the  same  as  that  in  Gethsemane.  "Now  is  my  soul 
troubled :  and  what  shall  I  say  ?  Father,  deliver  me 
from  this  hour."  John  xii.  27.  Here  is  the  same 
troubled  soul,  the  same  shrinking  back  from  expected 
suffering,  the  same  appeal  to  the  Father  for  help,  the 
same  recognition  of  a  duty  to  perform.  The  prayer, 
as  recorded  by  John,  was  uttered  some  time  before  the 
feast  of  the  passover,  and  it  thus  appears  that  the 
touching  language  in  the  garden  was  not  then,  for  the 
first  time,  upon  the  lips  of  the  precious  sufferer.  It 
may  have  been  repeated  thousands  upon  thousands  of 
4* 


42  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

times.  How  little  do  we  understand  the  sufferings  of 
our  blessed  Redeemer.  God  has,  in  much  mercy,  hid 
the  future  from  us.  Who,  in  the  morning  of  his  days, 
would  not  be  appalled  with  horror  if  the  veil  were 
lifted  up,  and  he  were  permitted  to  gaze  upon  the 
dreadful  scenes  through  which  he  had  to  pass  in  after 
life?  Now  standing  by  the  pale  corpse  of  a  loved 
mother,  then  hanging  over  the  bed  of  a  dying  child ; 
one  while  writhing  under  the  sharp  arrows  of  envy, 
malice,  and  detraction;  at  another,  convulsed  with 
bodily  pain  or  stupefied  by  some  paralyzing  disease. 
But  thanks  to  our  gracious  Father,  the  future  has 
been  revealed  to  but  one  man  of  our  race.  "With 
him,  the  terrible  conflict  in  Gethsemane  was  an  ever 
present  reality,  from  the  moment  that  he  could  lisp 
his  mother's  name  in  Nazareth,  till  he  cried,  "It  is 
finished!"  upon  Calvary.  Well  might  it  be  said  of 
him,  that  he  was  "a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted 
with  grief."  But  we  quoted  the  above  passage  in 
John,  not  with  the  design  of  moralizing,  but  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  the  beautiful  consistency  of  the 
gospel  narratives.  The  prayer  in  Gethsemane  is  a 
very  remarkable  one ;  it  has  no  parallel  in  any  lan- 
guage ;  nothing  like  it  was  ever  uttered  before  by  any 
human  being.  Now,  suppose  that  three  witnesses 
swore  that  a  certain  man,  on  some  occasion,  used  an 
expression  so  unusual  as  to  attract  the  attention  of 
the  court,  and  even  to  excite  their  doubts  as  to  its 
reality ;  but  suppose  that  a  third  witness,  being  called 
upon  to  testify  in  regard  to  a  totally  different  matter, 


OF   CHRIST.  43 

put  this  identical  expression  in  the  mouth  of  the  same 
individual,  would  not  the  court  be  satisfied  by  this 
undesigned  coincidence,  that  the  man  had  really  used 
the  expression  as  stated  by  the  first  witness,  and  that 
it  was  a  habitual  one  with  him  ? 

14.  The  case  supposed  is  entirely  parallel  with  that 
under  consideration.  Three  of  the  Evangelists  record 
the  most  wonderful  prayer  ever  uttered,  and  which, 
but  for  our  familiarity  with  it  from  childhood,  would 
excite  our  most  profound  astonishment;  the  fourth 
Evangelist,  writing  upon  another  subject,  and  with 
reference  to  another  occasion,  gives  in  substance  the 
very  same  prayer. 

But  in  the  case  contemplated,  the  court  would  be 
still  better  satisfied  if  the  fourth  witness,  without  aim- 
ing to  explain  how  the  man  acquired  such  an  unusual 
phrase,  let  fall  incidentally  some  hints  from  which 
the  court  itself  could  gather  how  he  acquired  it. 
Now,  this  is  exactly  what  John  has  done.  He  does 
not  give  us  the  prayer  in  Gethsemane,  neither  has  he 
said  anything  directly  in  explanation  of  it ;  but  he 
records  here  and  there  in  his  narrative  certain  say- 
ings of  Jesus,  which  show  the  very  spirit  that  dictated 
it.  He  tells  us  of  Christ  using  these  remarkable 
words,  early  in  his  ministry,  "I  came  down  from 
Heaven  not  to  do  my  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me."  Blessed  be  God,  he  did  not  forget 
the  object  of  his  mission,  when  he  lay  stretched  in 
anguish  upon  the  ground  beyond  the  brook  Kedron. 
Again,  we  hear  him  saying,  "  The  Father  hath  not 


44  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

left  me  alone,  for  I  do  always  the  things  that  please 
him."  John  has  not  told  us,  but  the  other  Evangelists 
have,  how  he  sought  to  please  that  Father  even  on 

"That  dark  and  doleful  night 
When  powers  of  earth  and  hell  arose." 

Again,  we  hear  him  saying,  "But  I  honour  my 
Father  and  ye  do  dishonour  me.  And  I  seek  not 
my  own  glory."  And  this  desire  to  honour  the  Father, 
and  this  disregard  of  self,  triumphed  in  his  prayer, 
over  the  natural  shrinking  of  the  man  from  suffering 
and  death.  And  when  he  set  his  face  to  go  up  to 
Jerusalem,  knowing  all  things  that  would  befall  him 
there,  he  said:  "But  that  the  world  may  know  that 
I  love  the  Father :  and  as  the  Father  gave  me  com- 
mandment, even  so  I  do."  Now,  can  there  be  nicer 
harmony  than  is  exhibited  in  the  Gospels,  touching 
the  wonderful  scene  in  the  garden?  Three  of  the 
writers  record  a  prayer,  breathing  the  most  perfect 
submission  to  the  will  of  the  Father :  the  fourth  does 
not  make  any  allusion  to  the  prayer,  but  relates  many 
expressions  of  Christ  made  on  different  occasions  and 
at  wide  intervals  apart — all  professing  the  most  per- 
fect subordination  to  the  wishes  and  commands  of 
his  Father.  And  thus  the  Evangelist,  who  is  silent 
in  regard  to  the  language  of  resignation  in  Geth- 
semane,  tells  us  far  more  explicitly,  more  fully  and 
more  frequently  than  the  other  three  Evangelists,  of 
the  habitual  subserviency  of  the  Son  to  the  Father. 
And  so  John,  without  giving  the  prayer,   gives  the 


OF   CHRIST.  45 

most  complete  explanation  of  it,  by  showing  the  spirit 
which  prompted  it. 

15.  Now,  suppose  that  three  witnesses  testified  to 
a  will  in  which  A  left  a  legacy  to  B.  This  is,  of 
course,  sufficient  to  establish  the  validity  of  B's  claim 
to  the  legacy.  But  suppose  that  the  character  of 
these  witnesses  has  been  impugned,  and  that  while 
the  question  was  in  abeyance,  a  different  trial  came 
on,  in  no  way  connected  with  the  preceding.  And 
suppose  that  another  witness,  in  the  new  case,  men- 
tioned incidentally  in  his  testimony,  certain  ardent 
expressions  of  attachment  on  the  part  of  A  towards 
B.  Would  not  this  incidental  evidence  satisfy  any 
reasonable  jury,  that  A  had  really  left  the  legacy  in 
dispute  to  his  cherished  friend  B?  They  would  be 
satisfied  of  this  fact,  because  they  now  understand 
the  spirit  which  prompted  the  gift.  The  case  under 
consideration  is  exactly  like  the  one  supposed.  Three 
witnesses  depose  to  a  certain  occurrence  in  Geth- 
semane.  Their  character  is  impugned,  and  the  occur- 
rence discredited:  but  a  fourth  witness,  testifying 
aLout  a  different  thing  altogether,  lets  drop  undesign- 
edly certain  expressions,  which  show  us  exactly  how 
the  occurrence  was  brought  about.  We  say  unde- 
signedly, for  it  is  preposterous  to  suppose  that  when 
John  wrote  the  sayings  of  Christ,  which  we  have 
quoted,  he  did  it  in  order  to  explain  the  prayer  in 
the  garden.  These  sayings  come  in  too  naturally  in 
the  connection  in  which  they  are  found;  they  har- 
monize too  well  with  the  context,  to  admit  the  wild 


46  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

conjecture  that  they  have  been  thrust  in,  with  the 
design  of  throwing  light  upon  another  matter. 

Luke  xxii.  43,  is  in  these  words :  "And  there  ap- 
peared unto  him  an  angel  from  heaven,  strengthening 
him." 

This  angelic  visitation  is  not  mentioned  by  the  other 
Evangelists.  How  shall  we  account  for  so  singular 
an  omission  ?  We  must  again  seek  an  explanation  in 
the  character  of  the  witness.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact, 
that  Luke  tells  us  more  of  the  agency  of  angels,  than 
does  Matthew,  Mark,  or  John.  Thus  he  alone  men- 
tions the  visit  of  Gabriel  to  Zacharias,  announcing 
the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist ;  and  to  Mary,  announc- 
ing the  birth  of  Christ ;  and  the  visit  of  the  angel  to 
the  shepherds,  when  Jesus  was  born  in  Bethlehem; 
and  of  the  heavenly  host  that  sang,  "  Glory  to  God  in 
the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  and  good  will  to 
men."  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  written  by  him, 
there  are  no  less  than  thirteen  allusions  to  angels. 
The  ministry  of  angels  seems  then  to  have  been  a 
favourite  subject  with  Luke;  and  it  would  have  been 
unnatural  and  wholly  out  of  character  for  him  to  have 
failed  to  notice  the  strengthening  of  Christ  by  one  of 
these  messengers  of  light.  We  account  for  the  prone- 
ness  of  Luke  to  speak  of  these  mysterious  beings  from 
another  world,  by  the  nature  of  his  profession,  and  his 
intimacy  with  Paul.  Surely,  the  pious  physician,  who 
stands  so  often  in  the  dark  hour  of  night  by  the  dying 
bed,  watching  the  glazing  eye,  the  failing  pulse,  and 
the  waning  life,  must,  of  all  men,  be  most  likely  to 


OF   CHRIST.  47 

think  of  invisible  spirits  hovering  near,  to  convey  the 
released  soul  to  the  God  who  made  it.  Again,  not 
only  was  Luke  the  constant  companion  of  Paul  in  his 
travels,  but  it  is  highly  probable  that  he  was  also  the 
kinsman  of  the  great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  (See 
Rom.  xvi.  21.)  And  it  is  well  known  that  almost  all 
the  information  that  we  have  about  the  nature  and 
offices  of  angels,  is  derived  from  the  writings  of  Paul. 
(See  Heb.  chap,  i.,  &c.)  And  in  addition  to  his 
explicit  instruction  on  these  points,  there  are  in  his 
epistles  some  twenty-four  or  twenty-five  allusions  to 
these  heralds  of  the  Most  High.  But  however  we 
account  for  the  marked  characteristic  in  Luke  as  a 
writer,  of  the  existence  of  that  characteristic  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  And  so,  in  recording  an  incident 
passed  over  by  the  other  witnesses,  he  has  preserved 
his  own  individuality. 

16.  "We  have  seen  that  it  is  the  preservation  of 
individuality  in  a  witness  which  gives  the  greatest 
weight  to  his  testimony. 

We  have,  in  the  44th  verse,  another  circumstance 
recorded  by  Luke  alone.  This  verse  reads  thus: 
"And  being  in  an  agony,  he  prayed  more  earnestly; 
and  his  sweat  was  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood 
falling  down  to  the  ground." 

So  remarkable  a  phenomenon  as  a  bloody  sweat 
would  be  more  likely  to  attract  the  attention  of  a 
physician  than  any  one  else.  It  was  more  natural 
then  for  Luke,  than  for  the  other  Evangelists,  to 
record  this  singular  occurrence.     Matthew  and  Mark 


48  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

may  not  have  been  aware  how  unnatural  it  was ;  or 
taking  the  opposite  view,  they  may  not  have  known 
that  the  medical  books  contained  any  similar  cases, 
and  might  therefore  fear  that  their  statements  would 
be  discredited.  Luke,  however,  from  his  knowledge 
of  physiology,  would  most  likely  be  aware  that  such  a 
sweat,  though  unusual,  was  not  unprecedented.  Aris- 
totle, who  was  born  384  B.  C,  makes  mention  of  bloody 
sweats.  So  does  Diodorus  Siculus,  who  wrote  his  his- 
tory a  little  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  It  is  highly 
probable  that  Luke  was  familiar  with  these  renowned 
authors.  His  style  and  composition  prove  him  to 
have  been  a  scholar ;  and  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that 
he  was  unacquainted  with  the  most  celebrated  writings 
existing  in  his  age.  It  would  be  indeed  strange,  if  an 
educated  man  like  Luke  were  ignorant  of  productions 
so  highly  esteemed  by  his  contemporaries.  It  is  not 
strange  that  uneducated  men,  like  Matthew  and  Mark, 
knew  nothing  about  them.  The  bloody  sweat  lias 
been  observed  occasionally  since  the  Christian  era. 
Galen,  who  wrote  less  than  two  centuries  after  Christ, 
says:  "Cases  sometimes  happen,  in  whicl},  through 
mental  pressure,  the  pores  may  be  so  dilated,  that  the 
blood  will  issue  through  them ;  so  that  there  may  be 
a  bloody  sweat."  The  biographer  of  Pope  Sextus  V. 
alludes  to  this  phenomenon.  So  does  Sir  John  Char- 
din,  in  his  history  of  Persia.  Thuanus  also  mentions 
the  case  of  an  Italian  who  was  affected  with  a  bloody 
sweat.  And  God  has  so  ordained  it,  to  silence  the 
cavils  of  infidelity,  that  Voltaire  himself,  in  his  life  of 


OF   CHRIST.  49 

Charles  IX.,  tells  us  that  the  blood  oozed  out  of  every 
pore  of  that  most  guilty  and  most  unhappy  monarch. 
In  every  case  recorded,  the  affection  has  been  the 
result  of  great  mental  emotion.  This  singular  visita- 
tion upon  Charles  IX.  has  been  attributed  most 
generally  to  his  remorse  for  the  massacre  on  St.  Bar- 
tholomew's day.  We  see,  then,  that  the  bloody  sweat 
has  not  happened  so  often  as  not  to  be  regarded  as  a 
notable  phenomenon  by  an  intelligent  physiciaa  like 
Luke ;  and  yet  not  so  seldom  as  for  him  to  be  afraid 
of  being  discredited  for  the  mention  of  it. 

Now  we  think  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  find 
a  more  sure  mark  of  the  credibility  of  evidence,  than 
is  afforded  by  Luke  alone  alluding  to  the  bloody  sweat 
in  Gethsemane.  If  Matthew  and  Mark  had  mentioned 
it,  and  Luke  failed  to  do  so,  scepticism  would  have 
raised  an  objection  which  it  would  have  been  impossi- 
ble to  answer.  But  as  it  is,  the  phenomenon  has  been 
recorded  by  the  very  man  whom  we  would  have  pro- 
nounced, a  priori,  the  suitable  person  to  make  it. 

17.  In  courts  of  justice,  the  testimony  of  a  witness 
carries  more  weight  with  it,  when  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  known  character  of  the  man,  when  perfectly 
in  harmony  with  his  known  habits  of  observation  and 
his  profession  in  life.  Should  not  the  same  force 
accompany  the  evidence  of  Luke,  which  so  completely 
satisfies  the  foregoing  conditions  ?  If  a  physician  were 
called  upon  to  testify  in  regard  to  an  affray  in  which 
a  dangerous  stab  was  inflicted,  the  court  would  expect 
from   him   a  description   of  the  wound,   and  of  the 


50  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

symptoms  of  the  patient.  Other  witnesses  would  be 
simply  required  to  give  information  about  the  blow, 
and  the  causes  that  led  to  it,  without  noticing  the 
condition  of  the  wounded  man.  This  is  exactly  what 
Matthew  and  Mark  have  done,  while  Luke,  with  pro- 
fessional accuracy,  has  described  the  condition  of  the 
illustrious  Sufferer. 

The  44th  verse  furnishes  another  point,  to  which 
we  attach  no  little  importance.  Matthew  tells  us,  that 
Jesus  " fell  on  his  face,  and  prayed;"  Mark,  that  he 
"fell  on  the  ground,  and  prayed."  Luke,  however,  in 
the  41st  verse,  says  he  "kneeled  down,  and  prayed." 
Now  we  observe,  that  there  is  perfect  agreement 
between  Matthew  and  Mark,  while  Luke  differs  from 
both.  There  is  but  one  way  of  reconciling  these  appa- 
rently discrepant  statements,  and  that  is  by  supposing 
that  Christ  both  kneeled  and  fell  on  his  face.  And 
we  think  that  we  can  show  at  what  precise  time  he 
changed  his  posture  from  kneeling,  and  fell  flat  on  the 
ground.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  falling  on  the 
ground  denoted,  with  the  Jews,  great  earnestness,  and 
the  very  extremity  of  anguish  and  distress.  Thus,  at 
the  time  of  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  Dathan  and 
Abiram,  Moses  and  Aaron  "  fell  upon  their  faces,  and 
said,  0  God,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  shall 
one  man  sin,  and  wilt  thou  be  wroth  with  all  the 
congregation?"  Num.  xvi.  22.  Thus,  when  "Israel 
turned  their  backs"  before  the  men  of  Ai,  Joshua 
"fell  to  the  earth  upon  his  face  before  the  ark  of  the 
Lord  until  the  even-tide,  he  and  the  elders  of  Israel." 


OF   CHRIST.  51 

Josh.  vii.  6.  Thus,  when  Job  heard  of  the  death  of 
his  children,  and  the  destruction  of  his  property,  he 
"fell  down  upon  the  ground,  and  worshipped."  Job 
i.  20.  Thus,  after  Nathan's  message  to  David,  the 
penitent  king  "fasted,  and  went  in  and  lay  all  night 
upon  the  earth."  2  Sam.  xii.  16.  Thus,  when  the 
Ammonites  and  Moabites  came  up  against  Judah,  in 
the  days  of  Jehoshaphat,  that  monarch  "bowed  his 
head,  with  his  face  to  the  ground ;  and  all  Judah  and 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  fell  before  the  Lord,  wor- 
shipping the  Lord."  2  Chron.  xx.  18.  In  all  these 
cases,  the  prostration'  of  the  body  indicated  great 
agony  of  mind,  and  the  casting  of  the  supplicant  upon 
the  mercy  of  God.  It  was,  with  the  Jew,  the  distin- 
guishing outer  act  by  which  he  signified  the  deep 
earnestness  of  his  soul  within.  Keeping  this  in  view, 
we  find  the  most  beautiful  harmony  in  the  accounts 
of  the  three  Evangelists.  Jesus  first  "kneeled  down," 
as  Luke  relates,  in  the  41st  verse;  but  when  he 
"prayed  more  earnestly,"  in  his  agony,  as  recorded 
in  the  44th  verse,  he  fell  upon  his  face  on  the  ground. 
Here  there  is  consistency  between  the  three  writers, 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke ;  but  this  consistency  only 
becomes  apparent  by  a  remark  in  the  44th  verse, 
which  was  made  in  the  most  natural  manner,  and 
evidently  without  any  design  to  remove  a  difficulty. 

18.  Now,  suppose  that  in  a  suit  at  law,  the  state- 
ments of  the  witnesses  had  seemed  to  clash  in  like 
manner,  but  were  reconciled  by  a  casual  observation 
from  one  of  them.     Would  not  more  importance  be 


52  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

attached  to  the  testimony,  than  though  there  had 
been  no  seeming  disagreement?  Would  not  the  dis- 
crepancy prove  the  absence  of  collusion,  and  its  recon- 
cilement establish,  beyond  controversy,  the  truth  of 
the  witnesses  ? 

Luke  xxii.  45,  reads  thus :  "And  when  he  rose  up 
from  prayer  and  was  come  to  the  disciples,  he  found 
them  sleeping  for  sorrow." 

Matthew  and  Mark  both  tell  us  of  our  Saviour 
finding  the  disciples  asleep.  But  neither  of  them 
attempts  to  give  any  explanation  of  it,  unless  we  take 
as  such  the  statement  that  "  their  eyes  were  heavy." 
Luke,  however,  not  only  mentions  the  remarkable 
manner  in  which  the  disciples  were  affected,  but  he 
also  gives  us  the  pathology  of  the  affection,  just  as 
any  other  medical  man  would  do  in  similar  circum- 
stances. It  is,  of  course,  the  province  of  the  physi- 
cian to  tell  the  cause  as  well  as  the  nature  of  the  dis- 
ease. This  Luke  has  done.  He  says  that  the  cause 
of  this  heaviness  of  eyes,  oppression,  and  most  un- 
natural drowsiness  was  sorrow.  Has  he  assigned  a 
sufficient  cause  for  the  effects  produced  ?  Does  over- 
whelming grief  produce  a  tendency  to  sleep  ?  Those 
who  have  been  accustomed  to  observe  the  intimate 
connection  between  mind  and  body,  need  not  be  told 
that  what  prostrates  the  one  will  often  overthrow  the 
other.  Extraordinary  mental  emotion  of  any  kind 
frequently  produces  extreme  lassitude  and  debility  of 
body,  exceedingly  favourable  to  the  approaches  of 
"tired  nature's  sweet  restorer."     Thus  militarv  men 


OF   CHRIST.  53 

have  often  noticed  that  after  a  day  of  exciting  manoeu- 
vering,  preparatory  to  a  great  battle,  the  soldiers 
sleep  soundly  and  heavily.  So,  too,  nothing  is  more 
common  than  for  prisoners  to  enjoy  refreshing  slum- 
bers the  night  before  their  execution.  That  close 
observer  and  profound  judge  of  human  nature,  Sir 
Walter  Scott,  has  put  into  the  mouth  of  Ratcliffe — 
the  turnkey  of  the  Tolbooth  at  Edinburgh — the  fol- 
lowing words:  "I  hae  never  heard  o'  ane  that  sleepit 
the  night  before  trial,  but  of  mony  a  ane  that  sleepit 
sound  as  a  tap  the  night  afore  their  necks  wTere 
straughted."  Barnes,  in  his  notes  on  Matthew, 
quotes  from  Dr.  Rush,  as  follows :  "  There  is  another 
symptom  of  grief,  which  is  not  often  noticed,  and  that 
is  profound  sleep.  I  have  often  witnessed  it  even  in 
mothers,  immediately  after  the  death  of  a  child. 
Criminals,  we  are  told  by  Mr.  Akerman,  the  keeper 
of  Newgate,  in  London,  often  sleep  soundly  the  night 
before  their  execution.  The  son  of  General  Custine 
slept  nine  hours  the  night  before  he  was  led  to  the 
guillotine  in  Paris."  Historians  have  mentioned  fre- 
quent instances  of  persons  under  condemnation  sleep- 
ing just  before  they  were  put  to  death ;  but  the  fact 
has  always  been  mentioned  by  these  writers  with 
admiration  as  an  extraordinary  proof  of  composure  of 
mind  in  the  victim.  Thus  they  mention  that  Mary, 
Queen  of  Scots,  slept  several  hours  after  midnight,  on 
the  morning  of  her  execution.  Thus  they  tell  us  that 
Charles  I.  of  England,  slept  four  hours  the  night 
before  he  was  beheaded;  and  that  Louis  XVI.  of 
5* 


54  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

France,  slept  for  the  same  length  of  time  the  night 
before  he  was  brought  to  the  guillotine.  Thus  they 
speak  of  the  Duke  D'Enghien  taking  a  brief  repose 
in  the  little  interval  of  time  left  him  between  his  con- 
demnation and  his  being  led  out  to  be  shot.  We  sup- 
pose that  not  one  reader  in  a  thousand  has  taken  a 
different  view  of  these  cases  from  that  presented  by 
the  historians.  But  Dr.  Rush  has  taken  an  entirely 
different  view,  and  has  regarded  the  sleep  not  as  a 
healthy  function  of  nature,  but  as  a  stupor  resulting 
from  great  mental  emotion.  And  just  as  Dr.  Rush 
has  taken  a  different  stand-point  from  the  historians 
and  the  majority  of  readers,  so  the  physician,  Luke, 
has  taken  a  different  stand-point  from  that  of  Matthew 
and  Mark.  An  examination  of  the  original  tongue 
in  which  these  authors  wrote,  will  bring  this  out  more 
fully.  Matthew  and  Mark  employ  the  same  Greek 
word  to  express  this  sleep — a  word  which  signifies 
deep,  profound,  intense  sleep.  But  Luke  uses  a  word 
which  literally  means  "put  to  sleep."  And  it  is 
remarkable  that  it  is  the  same  word  (koimao)  from 
which  physicians  have  derived  their  technical  term 
coma,  a  swoon,  or  state  of  stupefaction ;  and  comatose, 
an  adjective  applied  to  the  condition  of  insensibility, 
which  immediately  precedes  death. 

It  is  an  impressive  fact  that  Luke  alone  gives  an 
explanation  of  the  sleep  of  the  three  disciples  under 
circumstances  seemingly  so  well  calculated  to  keep 
them  awake.  It  is  still  more  wonderful  that  he 
employs  a  nice  technical  term  to  express  the  cause. 


OP   CHRIST.  55 

Taking  the  two  facts  together,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  the  credibility  of  his  testimony  can  be  impugned. 
It  is  strictly  professional,  and  yet  so  delicately  dis- 
criminating that  it  requires  the  closest  inspection  to 
detect  the  shade  of  difference  between  it  and  that  of 
Matthew  and  Mark. 

19.  It  is  ever  regarded  as  a  strong  proof  of  the 
reliability  of  a  witness,  that  his  evidence  bears  marks 
of  his  observation  having  been  influenced  unconsciously 
by  his  occupation  in  life.  And  the  more  finely  drawn 
are  the  marks,  the  stronger  is  the  conviction  of  the 
honesty  of  the  man.  And  when  (as  in  the  case  before 
us)  these  traces  are  attenuated  to  the  last  degree,  the 
integrity  of  the  witness  is  completely  and  irresistibly 
established.  No  testimony  was  ever  given  in  court 
which  bore  stronger  internal  proof  of  the  truthfulness 
of  the  witnesses  than  is  presented  in  the  seemingly 
disagreeing,  yet  really  harmonizing  accounts  in  regard 
to  the  awful  scene  in  Gethsemane. 

Again,  we  have  another  point  furnished  by  the 
45th  verse.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  though  Luke 
attributes  the  stupor  of  the  disciples  to  sorrow,  he 
had  not  said  one  single  word  about  their  being  grieved 
and  distressed  previous  to  this  time.  We  are  not 
then  prepared  for  the  announcement  from  him  that 
the  disciples  were  stunned  and  stupefied  by  the  mag- 
nitude of  their  grief.  If  the  testimony  of  Luke, 
therefore,  stood  by  itself,  we  would  be  constrained  to 
say  that  he  had  assigned  a  wholly  inadequate  cause 
for  the  marvellous  effect  produced.     But  on  turning 


56  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

to  the  other  three  Evangelists,  we  find  abundant  cor- 
roborations of  the  statement  of  Luke.  We  find  that 
the  disciples  were  greatly  troubled  from  the  time  that 
their  Master  announced  his  betrayal  and  death ;  and 
that  their  alarm  and  anxiety  were  so  great  that  Jesus 
found  it  necessary  to  make  a  special  address  to  them, 
in  order  to  allay  their  agitation.  The  primary  design 
of  the  discourse  of  our  Lord,  (recorded  in  the  four- 
teenth, fifteenth,  and  sixteenth  chapters  of  John)  was 
to  console  the  disciples  in  their  heavy  affliction  at  the 
thought  of  losing  their  well-beloved  Friend  and  Leader. 
This  tender  and  sympathizing  address  has  brought 
such  comfort  to  millions  of  mourners ;  it  has  fallen  so 
much  like  the  music  of  heaven  upon  the  ears  of  those 
who  were  bereaved  or  crushed  by  some  heavy  calamity, 
that  we  have  almost  lost  sight  of  the  object  for  which 
it  was  delivered.  It  is  so  wonderfully  adapted  to  the 
condition  of  those  who  have  trouble  of  any  kind,  that 
we  have  almost  ceased  to  remember  that  it  was  in- 
tended, first  of  all,  to  cheer  and  encourage  the  hearts 
of  the  disciples,  in  their  great  and  overwhelming 
sorrow. 

But  a  full  examination  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
John,  will  show  how  well  Luke  is  supported  in  his 
averment  that  the  disciples  were  stupefied  with  sor- 
row. Matthew  tells  us  that  when  Christ  had  told 
the  disciples  that  he  would  be  betrayed  by  one  of 
their  number,  "  they  were  exceedingly  sorrowful,  and 
began  every  one  to  say  unto  him,  'Lord,  is  it  I?'  ' 
Mark  says:  "And  they  began  to  be  sorrowful,  and  to 


OF   CHRIST.  57 

say  unto  him,  one  by  one,  'Is  it  I?'  and  another  said, 
'Is  it  I?'  '  John,  who  says  nothing  of  their  distress 
at  the  supper,  tells  us  most  explicitly  how  "sorrow 
filled  their  hearts"  on  their  way  to  Gethsemane.  The 
conversation  of  our  Saviour,  which  he  alone  has  re- 
corded, is  full  of  allusions  to  this  sorrow.  "Let  not 
your  heart  be  troubled:  ye  believe  in  God,  believe 
also  in  me."  "And  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he 
shall  give  you  another  Comforter."  "I  will  not  leave 
you  comfortless,  I  will  come  to  you."  "Let  not  your 
heart  be  troubled,  neither  let  it  be  afraid."  "Be- 
cause I  have  said  these  things  unto  you,  sorrow  hath 
filled  your  hearts."  "And  ye  now,  therefore,  have 
sorrow,  but  I  will  see  you  again,  and  your  hearts  shall 
rejoice,"  &c,  &c.  And  we  learn  from  John,  too,  that 
our  Saviour,  after  his  aifectionate  talk  with  his  disci- 
ples, offered  up  a  prayer  well  calculated  to  dissipate 
their  gloom  and  to  teach  them  reliance  upon  the  pro- 
tecting care  of  Gocl. 

Now  observe  the  perfect  fitting  in  of  part  to  part, 
in  the  gospel  narratives,  so  as  to  make  one  harmonious 
whole.  Matthew  and  Mark  tell  us  how  the  sorrow  of 
the  disciples  began  at  the  paschal  supper.  John  tells 
us  how  it  increased  in  their  walk  to  the  garden,  so 
that  Jesus  felt  constrained  to  comfort  them;  and, 
finally,  Luke  tells  us,  that  it  was  carried  to  such  a 
degree  as  to  produce  a  lethargic  slumber.  And  this 
nice  adjustment  of  statement  to  statement,  not  only 
enables  us  to  form  a  single  consistent  account,  but  it 
also  removes  all  difficulties  that  arise  in  the  accounts, 


58  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

taken  by  themselves.  Thus  an  objection  might  be 
urged  against  the  cause  which  Luke  had  assigned  to 
the  sleep,  because  he  had  made  no  previous  mention 
of  that  cause;  but  the  allusions  of  the  other  three 
Evangelists  to  it  are  most  copious  and  satisfactory. 

20.  Now,  suppose  that  a  witness  testified  abruptly 
in  court,  to  the  fact  that  he  saw  three  men  absolutely 
stupefied  from  the  effects  of  great  mental  emotion. 
We  might  be  inclined  to  discredit  him,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  such  a  result  would  require  a  cause  ope- 
rating for  some  time,  and  he  had  not  spoken  of  it  in 
this  manner.  But  if  two  other  witnesses,  without 
alluding  to  the  stupor,  adverted  casually  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  mental  excitement,  and  if  a  third  witness 
in  the  same  casual  manner  spoke  of  its  continuance, 
we  would  be  entirely  satisfied  by  this  unintended  har- 
mony, that  all  three  had  spoken  "the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth." 

There  is  still  another  point  here,  which  we  are  not 
disposed  to  pass  by.  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  do  not 
pretend  to  excuse  the  disciples  for  their  sleep,  upon  the 
ground  that  it  was  caused  by  their  distress  of  mind, 
have  however  given  us  the  excuse  offered  for  them 
by  Christ  himself.  They  tell  us,  that  he,  finding  them 
asleep  for  the  third  time,  said  to  them,  "  The  spirit 
indeed  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak."  And  this, 
as  we  understand  it,  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "I  know 
that  your  heart  is  right,  and  that  you  wish  to  watch 
with  me,  but  your  frail  human  nature  is  too  much 
jaded  and  worn   out  to   stand   the   fatigue."     Now, 


OF    CHRIST.  59 

would  Christ  have  furnished  an  insincere  excuse? 
Would  he  have  looked  with  allowance  upon  a  sleep 
which  seemed  to  manifest  such  heartless  want  of  sym- 
pathy with  him  in  his  agony,  if  there  had  been  nothing 
preternatural  in  that  sleep?  The  language  of  our 
Saviour  is  strongly  confirmatory  of  the  declaration  of 
Luke,  that  the  lethargy  of  the  disciples  was  the  result 
of  sorrow.  And  it  is  a  noticeable  circumstance,  that 
Luke,  who  gives  his  own  independent  reason  for  the 
sleep,  does  not  mention  at  all  the  excuse  offered  by 
Christ. 

21.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  stronger  proof  of 
the  credibility  of  evidence  than  is  afforded  here.  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  have  not  a  word  to  say  in  defence  of 
the  three  disciples ;  they  have  no  explanation  of  the 
sleep ;  they  see  nothing  preternatural  in  it :  they  tell 
us,  however,  (although  all  unconscious  of  its  important 
bearing,)  of  the  view  taken  of  it  by  Jesus  himself,  and 
that  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  opinion  expressed 
by  Luke. 

Luke  xxii.  46,  reads  thus :  "And  said  unto  them, 
Why  sleep  ye?  Rise  and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into 
temptation." 

A  comparison'  of  this  verse  with  the  parallel  pas- 
sages in  Matthew  and  Mark,  reveals  several  points 
which  are  worthy  of  our  attention.  First  of  all, 
we  notice,  that  as  Luke  had  omitted  to  mention  the 
selection  of  James,  and  John,  and  Peter,  to  watch 
with  their  Master,  so  he  has  also  neglected  to  mention 
that  Christ  prayed  three  times,  and  returned  at  the 


60  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

close  of  each  prayer  to  the  drowsy  watchers.  Our 
explanation  of  the  failure  to  allude  to  the  three  prayers 
is  the  same  as  that  already  given  for  the  failure  to 
allude  to  the  selection  of  the  three  disciples.  Luke 
evidently  knew  less  than  Matthew  and  Mark,  of  the 
agony  in  the  garden,  and  he  therefore  has  given  us 
fewer  of  its  details.  However,  his  very  omissions 
prove  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Evangelists.  In 
addition  to  the  fact  that  Matthew  and  Mark  had 
superior  opportunities  of  knowing  of  the  sufferings  in 
Gethsemane,  there  is  a  peculiar  propriety  in  the  men- 
tion by  them  alone,  of  the  choice  of  the  three  disci- 
ples, and  of  the  minute  particulars  in  the  garden.  As 
we  understand  this  choice,  it  was  not  merely  out  of 
preference  for  James,  and  John,  and  Peter,  but  it  was 
intended  to  rebuke  their  presumption,  and  to  teach 
believers  in  all  time  to  come,  that  "the  heart  is 
deceitful  above  all  things." 

Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  James  and  John  had 
declared  their  ability  to  drink  of  the  same  cup  of  suf- 
fering with  their  Lord,  and  to  be  baptized  with  the 
same  baptism  of  anguish  and  distress.  Let  it  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  when  Christ  spoke  of  the  smiting 
of  the  Shepherd  and  the  scattering  of  the  flock,  Peter 
was  the  very  first  to  proclaim  his  unswerving  allegi- 
ance; "though  all  men  shall  be  offended  because  of 
thee,  yet  will  I  never  be  offended."  Let  it  be  borne 
in  mind,  that  Matthew  and  Mark  alone  record  the 
boast  of  James  and  John.  Matt.  xx.  22;  Mark  x.  39. 
It  was  then  obviously  proper  for  them  alone  to  show 


OF    CHRIST.  Gl 

the  emptiness  of  that  boast.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind, 
that  though  Luke  tells  us  of  the  confident  language 
of  Peter,  yet  he  relieves  it  greatly  of  its  presump- 
tion, by  making  it  seem  to  be  in  self-defence  in  con- 
sequence of  a  special  charge  against  him  alone  for 
want  of  faithfulness.  Whereas,  we  learn  from  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  that  Christ  had  prophecied  his  deser- 
tion by  all  of  the  disciples,  and  thereupon  Peter 
audaciously  and  vaingloriously  professed  his  superior 
attachment  and  devotion.  It  was  eminently  suitable 
then,  for  these  Evangelists  to  show  how  completely  he 
falsified  his  profession,  when  the  Master  he  claimed  to 
love  so  dearly  came  to  him  three  times,  in  vain  implor- 
ing him  to  watch  a  little  while,  in  vain  imploring  his 
sympathy  and  prayers  to  support  the  glorious  Sufferer, 
in  his  awful  conflict  with  the  powers  of  darkness. 

The  point  we  make  here  is  this.  The  rebuke  of 
our  Saviour  recorded  in  the  46th  verse,  seems  ad- 
dressed to  all  of  the  eleven  disciples;  but  we  learn 
from  Matthew  and  Mark  that  it  was  addressed  only 
to  the  three  boasters — James,  and  John,  and  Peter. 
Now,  we  affirm  that  there  is  a  fitness  in  this,  which 
ought  to  excite  our  admiration.  It  was  right  that  the 
writers,  who  had  made  special  mention  of  the  pride, 
self-seeking,  and  self-laudation  of  the  three  disciples, 
should  also  record  their  fall.  The  gospel  narratives 
are  thereby  made  consistent  with  the  whole  scope  and 
teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Thus  the 
latter  tell  us  that  "  every  one  that  is  proud  in  heart 
is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord."  "Pride  goeth  before 
6 


62  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

destruction  and  a  haughty  spirit  before  a  fall."  "An 
high  look  and  a  proud  heart,  and  the  ploughing  of 
the  wicked  is  sin.'1  And  pride  is  spoken  of  as  the 
sin  which  keeps  men  from  God.  "  The  wicked,  through 
the  pride  of  his  countenance,  will  not  seek  after  God." 
And  there  are  numerous  examples  given  us  in  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  to  show  the  displeasure  of  the 
Lord  against  pride,  arrogance  and  boastfulness.  How 
signally  did  he  rebuke  his  own  servant  David,  for 
numbering  the  people  from  a  vainglorious  motive. 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  driven  from  among  men,  and  his 
dwelling  was  appointed  with  the  beasts  of  the  field, 
because  of  his  boastful  exclamation:  "Is  not  this 
great  Babylon,  that  I  have  built  for  the  house  of  the 
kingdom  by  the  might  of  my  power,  and  for  the  hon- 
our of  my  majesty."  Sennacherib,  king  of  Assyria, 
elated  by  his  victories  over  many  nations,  invaded 
Juclea  and  wrote  blasphemous  and  presumptuous  let- 
ters, saying:  "As  the  gods  of  the  nations  of  other 
lands  have  not  delivered  their  people  out  of  my  hand, 
so  shall  not  the  God  of  Hezekiah  deliver  his  people 
out  of  my  hand."  God,  however,  put  his  hook  in  the 
nose  of  the  boaster,  and  his  bridle  in  his  lips,  and 
turned  him  back  by  the  way  he  came.  But  one  hun- 
dred and  eighty-five  thousand  of  his  warriors  returned 
not  with  him, 

"For  the  angel  of  death  spread  his  wings  on  the  blast 
And  breathed  in  the  face  of  the  foe  as  he  passed, 
And  the  eyes  of  the  sleepers  waxed  deadly  and  chill 
And  their  hearts  but  once  heaved  and  for  ever  were  still. 


OF   CHRIST.  63 

And  the  widows  of  Ashur  are  loud  in  their  wail, 
And  the  idols  are  broke  in  the  temple  of  Baal, 
And  the  might  of  the  Gentile  unsmote  by  the  sword, 
Hath  melted  like  snow  in  the  glance  of  the  Lord!" 

Hezekiah,  who  had  been  so  miraculously  delivered 
from  impending  destruction,  fell  soon  after  into  the 
same  sin  of  pride,  which  had  ruined  the  haughty 
Assyrian.  For  he  boastfully  exhibited  to  the  mes- 
sengers of  the  king  of  Babylon,  "the  silver,  and  the 
gold,  and  the  spices,  and  the  precious  raiment,  and 
all  the  house  of  his  armour,  and  all  that  was  found  in 
his  treasures."  But  the  Lord  was  sore  displeased 
with  him  for  this  vain  display,  and  the  prophet  came 
with  the  stern  message:  "Behold  the  days  come, 
that  all  that  is  in  thine  house,  and  that  which  thy 
fathers  have  laid  up  in  store  unto  this  day,  shall  be 
carried  into  Babylon :  nothing  shall  be  left,  saith  the 
Lord."  Jehu  exultingly  exclaimed,  "come  with  me 
and  see  my  zeal  for  the  Lord."  But  Jehu  became 
a  worshipper  of  "the  golden  calves  that  were  in 
Bethel,  and  that  were  in  Dan."  And  God  permitted 
Hazael,  king  of  Syria,  to  ravage  his  territories. 
Uzziah  was  greatly  prospered  while  he  was  humble. 
"  But  when  he  was  strong,  his  heart  was  lifted  up  to 
his  destruction :  for  he  transgressed  against  the  Lord 
his  God,  and  went  into  the  temple  of  the  Lord  to  burn 
incense  upon  the  altar  of  incense."  And  God  smote 
him  with  leprosy,  for  presumptuously  attempting  to 
do  that  which  the  priests  alone  had  a  right  to  do. 

We   are   now  prepared  to  see  that  Matthew  and 


64  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

Mark  have  written  in  the  same  spirit  as  "the  holy 
men  of  old ;"  and  just  as  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment never  record  a  boast,  without  also  telling  of  its 
punishment,  so  the  two  Evangelists  who  record  the 
presumption  of  the  three  disciples,  tell  in  like  manner 
of  its  rebuke.  And  yet  Matthew  and  Mark  have  done 
this  in  the  most  natural  manner  conceivable,  without 
breaking  in  upon  the  unity  of  their  narrations,  and 
doubtless  without  being  conscious  themselves  that  they 
were  making  their  accounts  harmonize  with  the  whole 
scheme  of  Providence,  from  creation  down.  In  fact, 
this  harmony  has  only  been  brought  out  by  a  careful 
examination  of  their  testimony,  and  is  so  delicate, 
that  the  great  majority  of  readers  do  not  perceive  it 
at  all. 

22.  Now,  suppose  that  after  a  trial  had  been  pend- 
ing for  years,  two  witnesses  had  been  called  upon  to 
give  their  evidence ;  and  this  was  found  to  agree  in 
spirit  and  substance  with  all  preceding  evidence,  and 
yet  that  the  agreement  could  only  be  discovered  after 
a  rigid  scrutiny  and  critical  inspection — is  there  a 
court  in  Christendom  which  would  not  pronounce  the 
two  witnesses  to  be  honest-,  and  the  whole  testimony 
from  the  beginning  to  be  true  ?  How  then  is  it  possi- 
ble for  us,  on  seeing  the  wonderful  harmony  between 
Matthew  and  Mark  and  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  God's 
dealing  with  men,  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  the  two 
Evangelists  are  honest,  and  that  the  whole  Bible  is 
true  ? 


OF   CHRIST.  65 

But  there  is  a  collateral  point  here,  which  merits 
our  consideration.  Mark,  writing  under  the  direction 
of  Peter,  not  only  designates  that  apostle  as  one  of 
the  sleepers,  but  he  also  tells  us  of  Christ's  pointed 
rebuke  to  him  personally:  "And  he  cometh,  and 
findeth  them  sleeping,  and  saith  unto  Peter,  Simon, 
sleepeth  thou?  couldst  not  thou  watch  one  hour?" 
Observe,  that  Christ  does  not  call  him  Peter,  a  rock — 
an  honourable  surname  given  him — but  by  his  old 
name,  Simon.  There  is  more  of  censure  in  the  name 
by  which  Christ  addressed  him,  than  in  aught  else. 
It  would  seem,  that  when  Simon  acknowledged  Jesus 
to  be  the  Messiah,  his  Master  not  only  blessed  him, 
but  also  bestowed  upon  him  the  cognomen,  Peter. 
Matt.  xvi.  17,  18.  Now,  it  is  remarkable  that  Mark, 
who  relates  Christ's  personal  rebuke  of  Peter  in  the 
garden,  says  not  one  word  about  the  benediction. 
(Compare  Mark  viii.  29,  with  Matt.  xvi.  17,  18.) 
Peter  felt  too  much  humbled  after  his  fall,  to  permit 
Mark  to  tell  how  he  got  a  surname,  which  he  so  much 
dishonoured. 

We  have  said,  that  Christ  offered  an  excuse  for  the 
sleeping  disciples.  It  is  easy  to  reconcile  the  excuse 
with  the  rebuke,  if  we  take  Luke's  view  of  the  sleep. 
Christ  could  consistently  excuse  them  for  sleeping,  in 
the  condition  in  which  they  were,  and  yet  rebuke  them 
for  getting  into  that  condition.  There  was  something 
preternatural  about  their  sleep ;  but  if  they  had 
watched  and  prayed,  as  they  were  directed  to  do,  they 
would  have  been  enabled  to  resist  temptation,  and 
6* 


66  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

would  not  have  fallen  into  a  state  of  stupor.  Christ 
could  then,  with  perfect  propriety,  make  allowance 
for  them  in  being  overpowered  by  a  lethargy  which 
had  taken  full  possession  of  them,  and  yet  at  the 
same  time,  blame  them  for  not  resisting  the  first 
approaches  of  that  lethargy.  The  censure  and  the 
excuse  can  thus  be  readily  harmonized,  with  the  aid 
of  the  explanation  afforded  by  Luke ;  but  they  would 
be  wholly  irreconcilable  without  it. 

23.  However,  the  point  we  now  make  is,  that 
Peter's  modesty  and  honesty  entitle  him  to  be  believed 
as  a  witness.  He  was  too  modest  to  allow  his  amanu- 
ensis, Mark,  to  record  the  blessing,  and  the  title  con- 
ferred upon  him.  He  was  too  honest  to  permit  his 
secretary  to  pass  over  the  pointed  rebuke  which  he 
received  in  the  garden.  Had  he  kept  silence  about 
it,  the  other  ten  disciples  and  the  world  most  likely 
never  would  have  known  it;  for  it  is  not  probable 
that  James  and  John,  in  their  drowsy  condition,  heard 
it  at  all. 

Now,  the  boastfulness  of  pride  has  ever  been  re- 
garded as  a  mark  of  untruthfulness.  "  The  proud 
have  forged  a  lie  against  me,"  said  David,  in  a  time 
of  sore  persecution.  Solomon  has  associated  together 
"the  proud  look  and  the  lying  tongue,"  as  two  of  the 
six  things  which  the  Lord  doth  hate.  Paul's  classifi- 
cation of  the  wicked  runs  thus:  "Proud,  boasters, 
inventors  of  evil  things."  Here  the  bragging  tongue 
and  the  mischief-working  hand  are  coupled  together. 
To  this  agrees  the  declaration  of  the  Psalmist :   "  The 


OF    CHRIST.  67 

workers  of  iniquity  boast  themselves."  If  boasting, 
then,  be  joined  with  falsehood  and  wickedness,  surely 
modesty  ought  to  be  with  truth  and  righteousness. 
In  fact,  the  experience  of  all  mankind  confirms  the 
teaching  of  God's  holy  word.  Bragging  and  lying 
have  ever  been  found  associated  together;  modesty 
and  veracity  have  ever  been  inseparable.  The  traitor, 
Arnold,  was  one  of  the  greatest  braggarts  and  most 
unblushing  liars  of  his  age.  Washington  was  as  much 
distinguished  for  his  modesty  as  for  his  scrupulous 
regard  for  truth.  Peter's  modesty,  in  suppressing 
the  praise  which  he  had  received,  ought  then  to  pre- 
pare us  for  the  honesty  he  has  manifested  in  allowing 
a  severe  rebuke  of  himself  to  become  known.  And  as 
he  has  exhibited  both  traits  of  character,  we  are  at  a 
loss  to  imagine  how  any  witness  could  give  stronger 
proofs  of  rectitude  and  integrity. 

Before  passing  on  to  the  47th  verse,  it  may  be  well 
to  notice  a  matter  which  has  given  considerable  trouble 
to  the  most  judicious  commentators.  Matthew  tells 
us,  that  when  Christ  came  to  the  disciples  for  the 
third  time,  he  said,  "  Sleep  on  now,  and  take  your 
rest.  Behold,  the  hour  is  at  hand,  and  the  Son  of 
Man  is  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  sinners."  Adam 
Clarke  and  Whitby  suppose  that  the  direction,  "  Sleep 
on  now,"  was  spoken  interrogatively.  "Do  ye  sleep 
on  still?  Will  no  warning  avail?  Will  no  danger 
excite  you  to  watchfulness  and  prayer?"  Campbell, 
Doddridge,  and  Matthew  Henry,  take  a  still  stranger 
view  of  the  language  of  our  Saviour.     They  regard  it 


68  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

as  ironical,  and  equivalent  to,  "Now  sleep  on,  if  you 
can ;  sleep,  if  you  dare.  I  would  not  disturb  you,  if 
Judas  and  his  band  would  not."  Even  the  judicious 
Scott  perceives  a  grave  sarcasm,  in  the  permission 
granted  to  the  disciples  to  sleep.  He  says,  that 
"  Christ  bade  them  sleep,  and  take  their  rest,  that  is, 
if  they  were  able ;  for  though  his  agonies  and  exhorta- 
tions had  failed  to  keep  them  awake,  there  were  those 
coming  who  would  do  it  effectually."  The  last  two 
views  are  utterly  improbable;  the  meek  and  lowly 
Jesus  could  not  employ  the  language  of  irony  and 
sarcasm,  under  circumstances  of  such  peculiar  solemn- 
ity. And  so  thinks  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  though  he 
has  by  no  means  removed  the  difficulty  in  the  passage, 
which  consists  in  the  apparent  contradiction  of  Christ's 
telling  them  in  one  sentence  to  "sleep  on,"  and  in  the 
very  next,  to  "rise"  and  "be  going."  (See  Matt, 
xxvi.  45,  46.)  Mr.  Barnes  takes  the  interrogative 
view  suggested  by  Whitby  and  Clarke,  and  gives  as  a 
reason  for  it,  that  the  46th  verse  of  Luke  is  interroga- 
tive, and  points  to  the  same  time  as  that  indicated  in 
the  45th  and  46th  verses  of  Matthew. 

We  believe  that  most  expositors,  and  the  clergy 
generally,  entertain  a  like  opinion.  But  an  examina- 
tion of  the  original  shows  clearly  that  the  interroga- 
tive hypothesis  is  wrong,  and  that  the  "  Sleep  on  now, 
and  take  your  rest,"  of  Matthew,  and  the  "Why  sleep 
ye?"  of  Luke,  are  not  equivalent  expressions.  The 
literal  rendering  of  the  Greek  in  Matthew  is,  "  Sleep 
intensely  what  remains,  and  refresh  yourselves;"  that 


OF   CHRIST.  69 

is,  take  your  repose  for  what  time  yet  remains,  before 
you  will  be  disturbed.  This  demonstrates  the  incor- 
rectness of  the  interrogative  view  of  Whitby  and 
Clarke.  "Why  sleep  ye  what  remains,"  is  absurd 
phraseology.  Moreover,  it  is  entirely  inconsistent 
with  the  pity  manifested,  and  the  excuse  offered  by 
our  Saviour  for  the  disciples,  in  their  deplorable  con- 
dition. We  are  then  constrained  to  conclude,  that 
Luke  has  condensed  in  the  46th  verse,  the  first  and 
last  addresses  of  Christ.  Matthew  and  Mark  agree, 
that  on  his  first  visit,  his  language  was  interrogative ; 
that  on  the  second,  he  said  nothing ;  and  that  on  the 
third,  he  spoke  pityingly,  and  directed  them  to  sleep 
awhile,  and  then  added,  "Rise,  let  us  be  going."  To 
make  Luke's  statement  harmonize  with  that  of  Mat- 
thew and  Mark,  it  is  only  necessary  to  suppose  that 
the  words  recorded  in  the  46th  verse  were  not  all 
spoken  at  the  same  time;  that  Jesus  said,  "Why 
sleep  ye?"  when  he  first  came  to  the  disciples,  and, 
"Rise  and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation,"  when 
he  roused  them,  to  go  forth  with  him  to  meet  Judas 
and  his  band.*  A  close  inspection  of  the  parallel 
passage  in  Mark  establishes  our  position.  He  says, 
"And  he  cometh  the  third  time,  and  saith  unto  them, 
Sleep  on  now,  and  take  your  rest :  it  is  enough,  the 

hour  is  come Rise  up,  let  us  go :  lo,  he  that 

betray eth  me  is  at  hand."     These  words  explain  away 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  we  have  been  gratified  to  find  that  Dr. 
Jacobus  also  refers  the  address,  "Why  sleep  ye?"  to  the  first  visit 
of  Christ. 


70  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

the  whole  difficulty  in  Matthew.  Jesus,  in  tender 
compassion  for  his  suffering  disciples,  permitted  them 
to  sleep  until  he  saw  his  persecutors  coming,  and  then 
said,  "It  is  enough."  You  have  slept  long  enough, 
the  betrayer  is  at  hand.  Nor  was  it  a  slight  indulg- 
ence, which  Christ  granted  his  disciples,  for  several 
hours  may  have  elapsed  from  the  time  he  told  them 
to  "sleep  on,"  until  he  aroused  them  saying,  "It  is 
enough."  And  this  we  will  now  attempt  to  prove. 
The  paschal  supper  was  most  likely  eaten  just  after 
sunset,  (at  that  season  between  six  and  seven  o'clock) 
and  allowing  ample  time  for  all  that  occurred  at  the 
table,  we  may  safely  suppose  that  Christ  did  not  reach 
Gethsemane  later  than  ten  o'clock.  And,  indeed,  at 
a  later  hour,  the  gates  of  the  city  would  most  likely 
have  been  closed.  To  ascertain  how  long  he  was  in 
the  garden,  we  have  then  only  to  fix  the  time  at 
which  the  betrayer  came.  A  comparison  of  the  Evan- 
gelists will  settle  that  point. 

The  third  denial  of  Peter  was  evidently  at  what  the 
Jews  called  cock-crowing,  that  is  just  before  daylight, 
(Kitto  and  Brown.)  Because,  we  know  from  a  com- 
parison of  John  with  Mark,  that  immediately  (straight- 
way) after  the  third  denial  of  Peter,  the  Jews  hur- 
ried Jesus  to  Pilate's  Hall ;  and  from  Matthew  we  learn 
that  it  was  just  then  daylight.  Now,  if  we  can  deter- 
mine when  the  first  denial  took  place,  we  will  be  able 
to  determine  also  pretty  accurately,  when  Christ  was 
arrested  in  the  garden.  And  this  we  hope  to  do  by 
a  careful  examination  of  the  Evangelists.     Mark  says 


OF   CHRIST.  71 

that  the  cock  crew  at  the  first  denial  of  Peter: 
Luke,  that  the  second  denial  was  "a  little  while" 
after  the  first,  and  that  the  third  was  "  about  the 
space  of  one  hour"  after  the  second.  Hence  there 
was  an  interval  of  something  like  an  hour,  more  or 
less,  between  the  first  denial  and  the  last.  John, 
(as  we  will  see  hereafter)  gives  an  account  of  the 
several  denials,  in  their  connection  with  the  trial 
before  Caiaphas,  as  it  progressed,  and  from  him  we 
learn  that  Peter  first  denied  his  Master  before  the 
high  priest  had  propounded  any  questions,  or,  in 
other  words,  before  Jesus  was  arraigned  at  the  bar. 
And  the  last  denial  John  places  after  the  condemna- 
tion of  Christ  by  the  Sanhedrim.  Therefore,  it  ap- 
pears that  the  Jews  hurried  through  the  trial  in  the 
palace  of  Caiaphas,  in  about  an  hour.  There  were 
three  powerful  motives  urging  them  to  despatch. 
First,  the  malignity  of  their  hate  was  such  that  they 
wished  to  execute  Jesus  as  speedily  as  possible. 
Second,  it  was  the  preparation-day,  and  they  had 
certain  religious  rites  to  perform,  after  they  had  got- 
ten through  with  their  bloody  work.  Third,  they 
were  exceedingly  anxious  to  get  Jesus  under  the 
charge  of  the  Roman  governor  and  soldiery,  before 
the  city  should  be  awake,  and  a  rescue  attempted. 
These  three  motives  were  sufficiently  cogent  to  pre- 
vent unnecessary  delay  in  the  mock  trial  before  Caia- 
phas, and  we  may  therefore  safely  say  that  it  did  not 
exceed  an  hour.  Supposing,  then,  that  daylight,  or 
the    second  cock-crowing  was   about  half  after    five 


72  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

o'clock  at  that  season;  the  first  crowing  could  not 
have  been  at  midnight,  as  commentators  generally 
teach.  The  interval  of  an  hour,  according  to  Luke, 
between  the  denials  of  Peter,  forbids  any  such  vague 
hypothesis.  Besides,  it  is  a  well  known  fact  that  the 
cock  does  crow  at  dawn  and  about  one  hour  before  it, 
and  that  not  until  after  three  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
is  there  so  short  an  interval  as  one  hour  between  any 
two  successive  Growings.  Assuming,  then,  that  the 
arraignment  before  Caiaphas  began  at  half-past  four 
o'clock,  and  allowing  half  an  hour  for  the  band  to 
return  from  Gethsemane,  the  arrest  was  most  proba- 
bly made  about  four  o'clock.  Assuming,  moreover, 
that  Christ's  agony  lasted  for  more  than  an  hour, 
(and  that  is  a  long  period  to  assign  to  such  extremity 
of  suffering,)  he  must  have  come  for  the  third  time 
to  the  three  disciples  at  about  eleven  o'clock.  There 
was  then  a  space  of  five  hours  from  his  saying, 
"Sleep  on  now,"  until  the  coming  of  the  "great  mul- 
titude with  swords  and  staves,  from  the  chief  priests, 
and  the  scribes,  and  elders."  It  will  now  be  seen 
that  the  whole  difficulty,  in  reconciling  the  45th  and 
46th  verses  of  the  twenty-sixth  chapter  of  Matthew, 
has  arisen  from  not  perceiving  that  it  was  some  hours 
from  the  third  visit  of  Christ  to  his  disciples,  until  the 
arrival  of  Judas.  And  if  our  estimate  of  time  be  cor- 
rect, he  could  and  did  indulge  them  in  sleep  from 
eleven  o'clock,  P.  M.,  till  four  A.  M. 

What  an  exalted  view  does  this  give  us  of  the  per- 
fect  unselfishness   of  our   precious   Redeemer!     He 


OF   CHRIST.  73 

graciously  permits  those  to  sleep,  whose  sympathy 
and  support  he  craves  so  ardently,  and  watches  alone 
those  five  dreary  hours  in  the  darkness  of  the  night. 
And  yet  how  little  fitted  is  his  body  for  such  a  task, 
already  enfeebled  as  it  is  by  the  terrible  ordeal  just 
gone  through!  And  what  awful  and  appalling  sub- 
jects of  contemplation  come  crowding  upon  his  mind ; 
the  betrayal  by  one  disciple,  the  denial  by  another, 
the  desertion  by  all,  the  crowning  with  thorns,  the 
spitting  of  contempt,  the  mocking,  the  buffeting,  the 
taunting,  the  hanging  in  agony  upon  the  cross,  the 
hiding  of  his  Father's  face !  How  he  shrinks  in  his 
loneliness  from  these  dreadful  thoughts,  and  yet  he 
allows  his  chosen  three  to  sleep  on,  and  sleep  on ! 
With  all  his  own  need  of  repose,  he  stands  watching 
over  the  slumbers  of  his  grief-stricken  followers,  with 
all  the  tenderness  of  a  mother  watching  by  the  sick- 
bed of  a  loving  and  beloved  child.  Hear  how  ear- 
nestly he  prays  for  them,  while  the  spirits  of  darkness 
stand  pointing  to  them  in  derision,  taunting  him  with 
their  desertion,  and  exulting  in  the  cruelties  and  death 
awaiting  him.  Still,  he  does  not  arouse  the  sleepers 
and  implore  one  word  of  comfort  and  consolation: 
"  a  little  more  sleep  for  my  beloved — the  murderers 
are  coming,  but  they  are  not  yet  here — rest  a  few 
moments  longer."  But  hark!  He  is  praying  for 
you  and  for  me!  " Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone, 
but  for  them  also,  which  shall  believe  on  me  through 
their  word." 

We  thank  thee,  0    Father,  that  the  merciful,  the 
7 


74  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

compassionate,  the  unselfish,  remembers  even  the 
chief  of  sinners.  But  look!  the  lights  are  flashing 
through  yonder  olive-trees.  Ah,  that  is  the  meas- 
ured tread  of  Roman  soldiery — see  the  gleam  of 
their  spears ;  and  that  roar  of  vengeance — it  is  from 
the  fierce  rabble  of  Jerusalem.  Mark  that  malicious- 
looking  wretch,  gliding  stealthily  before  them.  It  is 
Judas  himself — the  traitor  is  here.  Now  Christ  gently 
touches  the  sleepers,  and  awakes  them.  Still  loving 
his  own,  he  loves  them  to  the  end ;  still  thinking  of 
them,  and  not  of  himself,  his  words  of  awaking  are 
words  of  admonition  for  their  benefit:  "Rise,  and 
pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation." 

Never  man  spake,  never  man  acted  like  this  man. 
Son  of  God !  inspire  us  with  some  of  thy  own  magna- 
nimity, thy  own  generosity,  and  thy  own  unselfishness 
of  character.  Disciple  of  Jesus !  you  have  often  to 
bear  the  cross  of  Calvary  before  a  sinful  world ;  exhi- 
bit also  the  tenderness  of  Gethsemane,  in  your  inter- 
course at  home,  with  relations  and  friends. 

24.  It  sometimes  happens,  in  actions  at  law,  that 
the  testimony  seems  a  jumble  of  contradictions,  dark, 
confused,  inexplicable,  until  the  key  is  discovered, 
which  unlocks  the  mystery,  and  brings  everything 
out  in  the  broad  light  of  day.  Such  was  the  case, 
we  remember,  in  a  celebrated  murder  trial  in  England. 
And  it  is  plain,  that  after  all  seeming  contradictions 
have  been  reconciled,  the  jury  will  accept  the  whole 
evidence  as  true,  with  more  readiness  than  though 
there  had  been  no  difficulty.     The  discrepancies  show 


OF   CHRIST.  75 

the  absence  of  collusion,  and  their  removal  demon- 
strates the  truth  of  the  testimony. 

The  key  to  the  difficulty  in  Matthew  is  the  time 
spent  in  Gethsemane.  The  truth  was  locked  up,  and 
remained  concealed,  because  no  search  was  made  for 
the  key. 

If  we  have  gotten  the  right  solution  to  the  problem 
which  has  puzzled  the  world  so  long,  we  have  also 
gotten  an  unanswerable  argument  for  the  credibility 
of  the  Evangelists.  The  truth  has  been  elicited  by  a 
close  cross-questioning  of  the  witnesses  at  different 
times,  on  different  occasions,  and  under  different  cir- 
cumstances. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE   ARREST    OF   JESUS. 


The  next  verse  (47th)  is  in  these  words :  "And  while 
he  yet  spake,  behold  a  multitude,  and  he  that  was 
called  Judas,  one  of  the  twelve,  went  before  them, 
and  drew  near  unto  Jesus  to  kiss  him." 

The  first  thing  to  be  inquired  about  here  is  the 
composition  of  this  multitude.  Whence  did  they  come, 
and  how  were  they  armed  ?  Luke  says  nothing  directly 
on  these  points ;  his  allusions  are  only  incidental.  In 
regard  to  their  equipment,  John  says,  in  general 
terms,  that  they  carried  weapons,  (xviii.  31.)  Mat- 
thew is  very  explicit.     He   says,    that   Judas   came 


76  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

"  with  a  great  multitude,  with  swords  and  staves,  from 
the  chief-priests  and  elders  of  the  people."  Mark  uses 
nearly  the  same  words.  We  now  know  that  these  men 
came  from  the  chief-priests  and  elders,  and  that  a  part 
of  them  were  armed  with  the  best  military  weapon 
then  known,  and  were  therefore  most  probably  regu- 
lar soldiers ;  while  the  rest  were  provided  only  with 
staves,  such  as  a  civil  posse  would  carry.  Still  we  do 
not  know  whether  the  multitude  came  from  the  Jewish 
rulers,  on  their  own  responsibility,  or  in  obedience  to 
orders;  nor  can  we  account  for  their  difference  of 
equipment.  John,  however,  says  plainly,  that  Judas 
received  his  band  from  the  chief-priests  and  elders; 
and  we  therefore  are  put  in  possession  of  one  more 
fact.  Furthermore,  while  the  first  three  Evangelists 
speak  of  a  multitude,  or  rather  mob,  (as  the  word 
ochlos  truly  means,)  John  employs  a  Roman  term  to 
designate  the  band — speiras  in  Greek,  manipulus  in 
Latin — a  force  of  about  one  hundred  and  thirty  men, 
the  third  part  of  a  cohort.  (See  Olshausen.)  We  have 
now  gained  another  item  of  information:  those  who 
carried  swords  were  Roman  soldiers.  The  next  thing 
to  be  ascertained  is,  who  were  those  who  carried  staves. 
Luke  furnishes  the  necessary  information  in  the  52d 
verse  of  the  chapter  under  consideration.  He  there 
tells  us  incidentally,  that  "the  captains  of  the  temple" 
came  with  the  crowd.  These  were  the  officers  of  the 
Jewish  police  guard,  kept  at  the  temple  to  preserve 
order,  especially  on  great  festival  occasions.  Josephus 
frequently  alludes  to  this  body ;  and  it  is  reasonable 


OF    CHRIST.  77 

to  suppose  that  the  members  of  it  carried  only  staves, 
just  as  such  constabulary  forces  are  accustomed  to  do 
even  at  this  day.  We  now  understand  the  whole 
transaction.  Judas  went  to  the  Jewish  rulers,  and 
informed  them  that  Christ  meant  to  leave  the  city  by 
night,  to  pray  at  Gethsemane.  An  opportunity  would 
then  be  afforded  of  taking  him,  when  no  rescue  would 
be  attempted — the  very  thing,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
they  had  long  desired.  They  therefore  hastened  to 
the  temple,  and  got  part  of  the  police  force  to  go  with 
them  to  arrest  him ;  and  for  additional  security,  took 
with  them  some  of  the  Roman  guard,  which  kept  the 
tower  of  Antonia.  It  appears,  too,  from  what  is 
related  a  little  further  on  in  the  narrative,  that  the 
servants  and  retainers  of  the  Jewish  rulers  attached 
themselves  to  the  party,  thus  giving  to  the  promiscu- 
ous assemblage  the  character  of  a  mob.  Hence  the 
three  first  Evangelists  could  appropriately  designate 
the  whole  collection  by  that  epithet,  while  John,  with 
equal  propriety,  could  apply  a  military  term  to  the 
organized  portion  of  them.  Observe,  that  we  take 
neither  side  of  the  disputed  question,  whether  Roman 
soldiers  were  mixed  with  the  police  guard,  under  the 
control  of  the  chief-priests.  We  think  it  however 
exceedingly  improbable,  that  the  proud  Roman  would 
submit  to  the  orders  of  the  despised  Jew.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  make  any  such  unnatural  supposition,  to 
account  for  the  presence  of  the  military  in  the  arrest- 
ing party.    The  chief-priests  had  only  to  charge  Christ 

with  sedition,  before  the  Roman  officer  commanding 

7* 


78  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

at  the  tower  of  Antonia,  (as  they  afterwards  did 
before  Pilate,)  and  he  would  despatch  some  of  his 
soldiers  to  aid  in  the  arrest  of  the  supposed  rebel. 
These  troops  would  wear  with  them  their  swords,  while 
the  civil  posse,  under  charge  of  "the  captains  of  the 
temple,"  would  carry  only  their  staves  of  office. 

25.  If  we  now  sum  up  the  evidence,  as  courts  of 
justice  do,  we  will  have  as  fine  a  specimen  of  inde- 
pendent, yet  concurrent  testimony,  as  was  ever  exhi- 
bited. Matthew  and  Mark  tell  us  of  Judas  going  to 
the  chief-priests  and  elders,  and  of  the  different  equip- 
ment of  the  mob  which  arrested  Christ.  John  tells 
us,  that  the  Jewish  rulers  sent  this  body  of  men,  and 
at  the  same  time  employs  a  military  term,  which  shows 
that  the  Roman  manipulus  was  part  of  the  force. 
Luke  agrees  with  all  three,  in  an  incidental  reference 
to  the  swords  and  staves,  and  to  the  chief-priests  and 
captains  of  the  temple. 

The  question  may  now  be  raised,  Why  did  Judas 
betray  his  Master?  What  was  his  motive  for  so 
nefarious  a  deed?  We  can  get  an  intelligible  answer 
only  by  a  close  examination  of  the  witnesses.  Mat- 
thew tells  us,  that  on  a  certain  occasion,  Simon  the 
leper  gave  a  supper  to  Christ,  and  that  "there  came 
unto  him  a  woman  having  an  alabaster  box  of  very 
precious  ointment,  and  poured  it  on  his  head,  as  he 
sat  at  meat.  But  when  the  disciples  saw  it,  they  had 
indignation,  saying,  To  what  purpose  is  this  waste? 
For  this  ointment  might  have  been  sold  for  much, 
and  given  to  the  poor."     From  Mark  we  learn,  that 


OF   CHRIST.  79 

"Some  of  them  (the  disciples)  had  indignation  within 
themselves,"  when  they  witnessed  the  devotion  of  the 
woman.  So  then  it  appears,  that  only  some  of  the 
disciples  were  angry ;  and  of  these,  all  did  not  give 
vent  to  their  anger  in  words.  Who  then  was  it  who 
expressed  indignation  r  Luke  gives  us  no  explana- 
tion; for  the  anointing  mentioned  by  him,  in  the 
seventh  chapter,  was  doubtless  by  a  different  person, 
and  on  a  different  occasion.  (See  Trench  on  the  Mira- 
cles.) John,  however,  is  very  explicit.  He  tells  us, 
that  the  woman  was  Mary,  the  sister  of  Lazarus.  He 
informs  us,  moreover,  that  it  was  Judas  who  objected 
openly  to  the  waste  of  the  ointment:  "Why  was  not 
this  ointment  sold  for  three  hundred  pence,  and  given 
to  the  poor  ?  This  he  said,  not  that  he  cared  for  the 
poor ;  but  because  he  was  a  thief,  and  had  the  bag, 
and  bare  (or  stole,  as  the  word  may  mean,)  what  was 
put  therein."  Hence  it  seems,  that  Judas  was  the 
only  one  who  expressed  aloud  his  disapprobation  of 
the  woman's  conduct.  His  words,  however,  served  to 
inflame  some  of  the  other  disciples,  but  they  pru- 
dently kept  their  indignation  within  their  own  bosoms. 
The  extract  from  John  is  important,  inasmuch  as  it 
shows  that  Judas  was  a  money-loving,  money-grasping 
wretch ;  and  it  prepares  us  to  expect  any  villany  from 
him,  for  which  he  was  paid.  Now,  it  so  happens  that 
John,  the  only  Evangelist  who  speaks  of  the  avaricious 
nature  of  Judas,  is  the  only  one  silent  about  his  bar- 
gain with  the  Jewish  rulers.  Luke  informs  us,  that 
when   "the  feast    of  unleavened  bread  drew  nigh," 


80  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

Judas  "  communed  with  the  chief-priests  and  captains, 
how  he  might  betray  him  unto  them.  And  they  were 
glad,  and  covenanted  to  give  him  money."  Mark 
uses  nearly  the  same  words.  Matthew  specifies  more 
particularly  the  details  connected  with  the  bribery. 
He  tells  us,  that  Judas  went  to  the  chief-priests,  "  and 
said  unto  them,  What  will  ye  give  me,  and  I  will 
deliver  him  unto  you?  And  they  covenanted  with 
him  for  thirty  pieces  o£  silver.  And  from  that  time 
he  sought  opportunity  to  betray  him." 

26.  Now,  let  us  combine  the  testimony  of  the  four 
witnesses,  and  we  will  see  that  it  is  of  the  very  kind 
which  carries  with  it  the  strongest  marks  of  truth. 
Had  John  said  nothing  about  the  covetous  character 
of  Judas,  his  betrayal  of  his  Master  for  the  paltry  sum 
of  thirty  pieces  of  silver  (about  eighteen  dollars)  would 
seem  very  improbable.  And  had  not  the  first  three 
Evangelists  told  of  Judas's  bargain  with  the  chief- 
priests,  we  could  not  gather  from  John  that  the  traitor 
had  any  conceivable  motive  for  his  infamous  crime. 
It  would  seem  to  have  been  an  act  of  gratuitous  and 
unmeaning  wickedness.  The  four  parallel  accounts 
furnish  as  nice  an  example  of  the  harmony  of  testi- 
mony, without  collusion,  as  was  ever  exhibited.  John 
leaves  unexplained  the  motive  which  led  to  the  be- 
trayal. The  first  three  witnesses  tell  that  motive, 
while  John,  in  speaking  of  another  matter  altogether, 
shows  that  this  was  of  the  very  kind  to  operate  most 
powerfully  on  the  sordid  and  mercenary  soul  of  the 
traitor. 


OF   CHRIST.  81 

But  was  avarice  the  only  motive  which  prompted 
Judas  to  his  hellish  act  ?  The  first  three  Evangelists, 
in  the  most  careless  and  unguarded  manner,  reveal  the 
fact,  that  there  was  a  still  darker  and  more  infernal 
feeling  at  work  in  his  base  heart.  Luke  tells  us,  that 
when  "the  feast  of  the  passover  drew  nigh,  Satan 
entered  into  Judas  Iscariot,  being  of  the  number  of 
the  twelve."  By  a  reference  to  Matthew  and  Mark, 
we  find  out  the  precise  time  of  this  Satanic  visitation. 
It  was  two  days  before  the  feast,  and  just  after  Judas 
had  received  a  rebuke  at  Simon  s  table,  and  had  been 
exposed  for  his  hypocrisy.  Mark,  after  relating  that 
"  some  of  the  disciples  had  indignation  within  them- 
selves," gives  our  Saviour's  reply:  "And  Jesus  said, 
Let  her  alone ;  why  trouble  ye  her  ?  She  hath  wrought 
a  good  work  on  me.  For  ye  have  the  poor  always 
with  you;  and  whensoever  ye  will,  ye  may  do  them 
good:  but  me  ye  have  not  always,"  &c.  And  then 
Mark  adds,  without  seeming  to  see  the  bearing  of  the 
rebuke  on  the  transaction,  "And  Judas  Iscariot,  one 
of  the  twelve,  Avent  unto  the  chief-priests,  to  betray 
him  unto  them."  Matthew  also  places  the  visit  of 
Judas  to  the  Jewish  rulers,  immediately  after  the 
exposure  of  his  hypocritical  regard  for  the  poor,  and 
then  adds  these  significant  words:  "And  from  that 
time  he  sought  opportunity  to  betray  him." 

Now,  there  is  a  truthfulness  to  nature  in  this  whole 
transaction,  which  ought  to  satisfy  any  unprejudiced 
mind  of  the  credibility  of  the  gospel  narratives.  All 
history  and  all  experience  teach,  that  the  most  malig- 


82  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

nant  fiend  in  the  universe  is  the  exposed  hypocrite. 
Milton  has,  with  great  propriety,  put  the  strongest 
language  of  scorn  and  hate,  in  the  mouth  of  Satan, 
after  the  spear  of  Ithuriel  had  dissolved  his  assumed 
shape,  and  made  him  wear  once  more  his  own  grisly 
and  hideous  form. 

Men,  who  make  profession  of  goodness,  will  gene- 
rally exhibit  some  of  it  too,  so  long  as  they  possess 
the  good  opinion  of  their  fellow-creatures.  But  if 
that  be  lost,  and  they  have  no  principle  of  rectitude 
within  them,  they  are  then  ready  for  any  species  of 
crime.  Joseph's  brethren  did  not  meditate  murder, 
until  they  found  that  they  had  forfeited  their  father's 
confidence,  and  thought  that  their  brother  was  set  as 
a  spy  over  them.  Had  not  Titus  Oates  been  dis- 
graced at  the  Catholic  College  of  St.  Omer's,  the 
world  would  never  have  heard  of  the  Popish  plot,  and 
England  would  not  have  dishonoured  herself  by  shed- 
ding so  much  innocent  blood,  upon  the  evidence  of 
that  vile  perjurer.  Had  not  the  peculations  of  Gene- 
ral Arnold  been  discovered,  the  name  of  Benedict 
Arnold  would  not  be  associated  with  that  of  Judas,  in 
every  American  mind.  Had  not  Burr  lost  the  esteem 
and  good- will  of  his  countrymen,  he  would  never  have 
been  tried  for  treason  at  Richmond.  And  thus  it 
ever  has  been  and  ever  will  be.  The  detected  villain 
will  become  twofold  more  the  child  of  hell  than  before. 
The  exposure  of  his  complicity  in  the  Conway  con- 
spiracy against  Washington,  made   Gates   still  more 


OP   CHRIST.  83 

bitter   and    rancorous    towards    "the   father   of    his 
country." 

27.  The  correspondence  of  the  gospel  narratives 
with  the  records  of  history,  and  the  common  observa- 
tion of  mankind  ought  to  convince  us  of  the  reliability 
of  the  four  witnesses. 

A  skilful  painter  can  recognize  the  hand  of  a  mas- 
ter in  a  few  touches  of  the  pencil,  or  dashes  of  the 
brush.  We  are  told  that  the  Cardinal  St.  Giorgio 
sent  a  messenger  from  Rome  to  Florence,  to  discover 
the  artist  who  made  the  "Sleeping  Cupid."  The 
messenger  visited  the  studios  of  all  the  painters  and 
sculptors  in  Florence,  and  on  pretence  of  purchasing, 
requested  to  see  specimens  of  their  work.  At  length,, 
he  came  to  the  atelier  of  Michael  Angelo,  and  as  that 
celebrated  man  had  no  finished  production  by  him  to 
exhibit,  he  took  up  a  pencil  and  carelessly  made  a 
sketch  of  a  hand.  The  messenger,  from  this  hasty 
outline,  discovered  at  once  the  long  sought  artist. 
Now,  if  in  works  of  art,  the  hand  of  a  master  can  be 
recognized  in  the  crudest  drawings  of  his  pencil,  and 
the  roughest  daubs  of  his  brush:  surely,  the  Author 
of  truth  and  of  nature  ought  also  to  be  recognized, 
by  the  truthful  and  natural  touches  portrayed  in  his 
word. 

But  the  47th  verse  furnishes  still  another  point, 
which  we  will  proceed  to  notice.  Luke  tells  us  that 
Judas  "went  before"  the  band  that  arrested  Jesus, 
but  he  does  not  tell  us  why  the  traitor  went  before. 
Matthew  and   Mark   are  silent  in   regard  to  Judas' 


84  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

leading  the  van.  John  is  silent  also ;  but  in  speaking 
of  the  taking  of  Christ  he  says,  "  Judas  knew  the 
place,"  (Gethsemane,)  and  from  the  connection,  it  is 
evident  that  no  one  else  of  the  party  did  know  it. 

Putting,  then,  the  statements  of  Luke  and  John 
together,  we  discover  that  Judas  went  before  in  the 
capacity  of  a  guide,  to  lead  the  band  to  the  garden. 
And,  in  fact,  Luke  afterwards  explains  the  reason  of 
Judas'  going  before,  by  calling  him  "guide  to  them 
which  took  Jesus."  Acts  i.  16. 

28.  The  spectator,  standing  under  the  Natural 
Bridge  in  Virginia,  observes  that  the  projections  on 
one  side  correspond  to  the  fissures  on  the  other,  and 
therefore  rationally  concludes  that  the  disrupted  mass, 
in  ages  gone  by,  constituted  one  stupendous,  united 
whole.  Shall  the  observer  of  spiritual  things  be  more 
stupid  than  the  observer  of  nature  ?  Shall  he  perceive 
this  nice  adaptation  of  part  to  part  in  the  gospel  nar- 
ratives, and  yet  fail  to  perceive  the  unity  of  plan  per- 
vading them  all  ? 

The  48th  verse  is  in  these  words:  "But  Jesus  said 
unto  him,  Judas,  betrayest  thou  the  Son  of  man  with 
a  kiss  ?" 

It  would  seem  from  this  that  there  was  some  con- 
nection between  the  kiss  and  the  betrayal.  But  the 
verse  by  itself  does  not  point  out  what  that  connection 
was,  and  we  would  be  utterly  unable  to  discover  it, 
were  it  not  for  the  parallel  passages  in  Matthew  and 
Mark.  The  former  of  these  writers  says:  "Now,  he 
that  betrayed  him  gave  them  a  sign,  saying,  whomso- 


OF   CHRIST.  85 

ever  I  shall  kiss,  that  same  is  he;  hold  him  fast." 
Mark  says:  "And  he  that  betrayed  him  had  given 
them  a  token,  saying,  Whomsoever  I  shall  kiss,  that 
same  is  he;  take  him  and  lead  him  away  safely." 
The  kiss,  then,  was  the  preconcerted  sign,  by  which 
the  arresting  were  to  recognize  and  identify  Christ. 
And  observe,  that  Luke  writes  of  the  betrayal  by  a 
kiss,  just  as  one  would  be  apt  to  do,  whose  mind  was 
so  familiar  with  it,  as  to  make  him  assume  uncon- 
sciously that  his  readers  were  as  well  acquainted  with 
it  as  himself.  The  very  excess  of  knowledge  in  the 
narrator  often  produces  obscurity  in  the  narrative. 
How  often  the  traveller,  on  inquiring  the  way  to  a 
certain  place,  has  been  told  by  one  who  knew  the 
route  perfectly,  that  there  was  no  road  to  take  him 
off.  And  yet  it  may  be,  that  he  has  gone  but  a  few 
rods,  when  he  encounters  a  broad  road  diverging 
from  the  one  he  is  pursuing.  The  man  accosted  did 
not  mean  to  deceive  the  traveller,  but  his  own  famili- 
arity with  the  route  made  him  unmindful  of  the  other's 
ignorance.  And  so  it  has  often  been  remarked  that 
men  of  greatest  genius  make  the  poorest  teachers. 
A  distinguished  English  mathematician  once  occupied 
the  chair  of  mathematics,  in  probably  one  of  the  very 
best  of  our  State  Universities ;  and  it  has  been  said 
that  the  chair  was  never  worse  filled.  He  was  inca- 
pable of  understanding  the  difficulties  that  minds,  less 
gifted  than  his  own,  were  ever  encountering.  Bow- 
ditch,  the  American  translator  of  the  Mecanique 
Celeste  of  the  celebrated  Laplace,  has  said,  that  when- 
8 


86  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

ever  he  saw  in  that  work,  "  it  is  plain  to  see,"  he  knew 
full  well  that  it  would  take  him  three  days  to  under- 
stand the  thing  thus  carelessly  alluded  to.  We  dwell 
upon  this  point,  because  it  is  the  key  to  many  of  the 
omissions  noticed  in  the  gospel  narratives.  In  the 
case  under  consideration,  Luke  evidently  neglected  to 
explain  the  object  of  the  kiss,  because  he  understood 
it  so  well  himself,  that  he  is  betrayed  into  an  assump- 
tion of  equal  knowledge  on  the  part  of  his  reader. 

This  allusion  is  just  clear  enough  to  show  his  own 
understanding  of  Judas's  design,  and  yet  not  suffi- 
ciently clear  to  inform  the  reader. 

29.  The  natural  manner  in  which  Luke  refers  to 
the  incident  of  the  kiss,  is  in  itself  no  mean  proof  of 
his  trustworthiness  as  a  witness.  And  that,  together 
with  the  concurrent,  yet  independent  statements  of 
Matthew  and  Mark,  constitutes  a  strong  argument  for 
the  credibility  of  the  gospel  narratives. 

We  have,  moreover,  another  point  furnished  by  the 
48th  verse. 

Why  did  not  Judas  point  out  his  Master,  and  boldly 
say,  This  is  he?  Why  did  he  approach  him  with  a 
specious  profession  of  attachment  ? 

We  answer,  that  the  hypocritical  act  was  entirely 
consonant  with  his  hypocritical  life  and  character. 
There  are  men  to  whom  deception  is  so  congenial,  that 
they  will  practice  it  when  candour  would  be  just  as 
serviceable  to  them.  There  are  men  so  thoroughly 
imbued  with  falsehood,  that  they  will  not  tell  the 
truth,  when  it  would  suit  their  purpose  equally  well 


OF   CHRIST.  87 

with  a  lie.  Judas  stands  out  preeminently  as  the 
representative  of  the  former  class.  None  will  dispute 
the  extraordinary  claims  of  Bertrand  Barere  to  repre- 
sent the  latter  class.  Macaulay  gives  the  following 
account  of  him :  "  Whatsoever  things  are  false,  what- 
soever things  are  dishonest,  whatsoever  things  are 
impure,  whatsoever  things  are  of  evil  report,  if  there 
be  any  vice,  and  if  there  be  any  infamy — all  these 
things  were  blended  in  Barere."  But  however  atro- 
cious may  have  been  the  character  of  the  French 
monster,  the  traitor  of  Judea  towers  above  him,  in  the 
loftiness  of  his  wickedness.  We  know  but  few  inci- 
dents in  the  life  of  Judas  Iscariot.  But  the  little  that 
is  known  is  sufficient  to  prove  him  to  have  been  a 
man  who  preferred  intrigue  to  fair-dealing,  cunning 
to  wisdom,  fraud  to  honesty,  a  crooked  path  to  the 
straight  broad  road.  In  the  first  place,  he  joined 
himself  to  Christ  from  no  good  motive.  His  own 
Master  pronounced  him  a  devil,  more  than  a  year 
before  his  last  crowning  act  of  infamy.  He  began 
his  career  then  as  a  hypocrite,  in  becoming  a  follower 
of  the  Son  of  God.  A  devil  in  heart  and  life  had  no 
right  to  be  in  his  holy  society.  We  next  find  Judas 
pretending  pity  for  the  poor  in  the  affair  of  the  oint- 
ment, when  he  truly  cared  nothing  for  the  poor,  but 
wished  the  perfume  sold  that  he  might  appropriate  to 
himself  the  money  resulting  from  the  sale.  And  then 
after  his  bargain  to  betray  his  Master,  we  find  him, 
with  matchless  effrontery,  sitting  next  that  most  in- 
jured Master  at  the  paschal  table,  and  joining  the 


88  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

other  disciples  in  the  question  of  surprise  and  con- 
sternation: "Lord,  is  it  I?"  And,  finally,  that 
nothing  might  be  wanting  to  complete  his  hypocrisy, 
he  approaches  Him  whom  he  had  sold  to  death,  with 
the  manner  of  a  tender  and  sympathizing  friend. 

Human  depravity  can  go  no  farther.  Treachery 
and  hypocrisy  can  never  exceed  this  act  of  baseness. 
Let  it  stand  without  a  parallel,  with  nothing  like  it  in 
the  ages  that  are  gone  by,  and  with  nothing  like  it  in 
the  ages  that  are  to  come.  Others  have  betrayed 
goodness  and  worth;  but  never  were  such  goodness, 
such  purity,  and  such  worth,  betrayed  before,  and 
never  will  such  be  betrayed  again.  Others  have 
betrayed  their  friends  and  benefactors — Judas  alone 
has  betrayed  his  Maker,  Preserver,  and  Redeemer. 
It  is  impossible  to  do  justice  to  the  depth  of  his 
wickedness.  It  is  impossible  to  portray  him  in  too 
revolting  colours.  And  so  felt  the  immortal  painter 
of  "The  Last  Supper."  It  is  related  of  Leonardo  da 
Vinci,  that  he  did  not  attempt  the  face  of  Judas  for 
months  after  he  had  completed  his  picture  in  every 
other  respect.  He  felt  unable  to  conceive  of  features 
with  that  rare  blending  of  sanctimony  and  rascality, 
which  he  thought  belonged  to  the  countenance  of  the 
arch-traitor.  And  to  aid  his  imagination,  he  visited, 
day  after  day,  the  haunts  of  the  vilest  men  in  Milan, 
and  united  the  diabolic  lineaments  of  them  all  in  a 
single  hideous  face. 

30.  The  point  which  we  make  here  is  this:  The 
faithful  portraiture  of  Judas' s  character  is  sufficient 


OF    CHRIST.  89 

to  prove  that  the  portraying  hand  was  guided  by 
infinite  wisdom.  No  writer  of  fiction  has  ever  been 
able  to  represent  a  perfectly  consistent  character. 
Even  Shakspeare,  the  mightiest  of  uninspired  men, 
mars  his  most  successful  pictures  by  incongruous  lines, 
and  injures  the  effect  by  too  much  light  or  too  much 
shade.  Take,  for  instance,  his  Lear.  The  storm  of 
passion  which  the  old  king  exhibits  at  the  conduct  of 
his  daughter,  and  the  intensity  of  injured  feeling  which 
he  manifests,  are  by  no  means  in  keeping  with  the 
previous  delineation  of  his  frivolous  pursuits  and  levity 
of  temperament.  We  expect  depth  of  emotion  in  men 
of  strong  natures,  engaged  in  manly  employments, 
and  not  in  men  of  light  characters,  whose  only  busi- 
ness is  amusement.  The  apostrophe  of  the  old  man 
to  the  storm,  beating  with  merciless  fury  on  his  bare 
head,  is  inexpressibly  touching : 

"I  tax  not  you,  ye  elements,  with  unkindness; 
I  never  gave  you  kingdom,  called  you  children ; 
You  owe  me  no  subscription :  why  then  let  fall 
Your  horrible  pleasure?    Here  I  stand,  your  slave; 
A  poor,  infirm,  weak,  and  despised  old  man  : 
But  yet  I  call  you  servile  ministers, 
That  have,  with  two  pernicious  daughters,  joined 
Your  high-engendered  battles  against  head 
So  old  and  white  as  this."  .... 

The  warfare  of  the  elements  without,  is  less  terrible 
than  the  warfare  of  the  passions  within.  The  storm 
beating  with  savage  violence  on  his  white  head,  but 
suggests  to  the  poor  old  man  the  still  more  unnatural 

8* 


90  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

treatment  of  his  daughters.  The  sufferings  of  the  old 
father,  and  his  nobleness  of  soul  under  them,  invest 
him  with  dignity,  and  inspire  us  with  awe.  And  in 
the  tenderness  of  our  sympathy  with  him,  we  are 
prone  to  forget  that  he  is  the  same  man  who  disin- 
herited his  only  true-hearted  daughter,  from  a  mere 
whim,  and  banished  his  most  trustworthy  nobleman, 
because  of  his  remonstrance  in  behalf  of  that  daugh- 
ter. We  are  prone,  too,  to  forget  that  the  old  king 
was  first  represented  to  us  as  a  roystering,  boisterous, 
pleasure-seeking  man. 

The  inspired  Evangelists,  on  the  contrary,  commit 
no  mistake  in  their  description  of  the  character  of 
Judas  Iscariot — not  a  single  inconsistency  can  be 
detected  in  their  representation.  The  picture  is  as 
perfect  in  outline  and  colouring,  as  Judas  was  match- 
less in  villany  and  hypocrisy. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  next  verse,  we  may  as 
well  finish  the  melancholy  history  of  the  miserable 
traitor.  Matthew  gives  us  the  most  ample  details  of 
his  last  doings,  and  death:  "Then  Judas,  which  had 
betrayed  him,  when  he  saw  that  he  was  condemned, 
repented  himself,  and  brought  again  the  thirty  pieces 
of  silver  to  the  chief  priests  and  elders,  saying,  I  have 
sinned,  in  that  I  have  betrayed  the  innocent  blood.  .  . 
And  he  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  in  the  temple, 
and  departed,  and  went  and  hanged  himself.  And 
the  chief-priests  took  the  silver  pieces,  and  said,  It  is 
not  lawful  for  to  put  them  into  the  treasury,  because 
it  is  the  price  of  blood.     And  they  took  counsel,  and 


OF    CHRIST.  91 

bought  with  them  the  potter's  field,  to  bury  strangers 
in.  Wherefore,  that  field  was  called,  The  field  of 
blood,  unto  this  day."  Matt,  xxvii.  3-8. 

The  things  stated  in  these  verses  were  not  done  in 
a  corner.  If  untrue,  they  were  glaringly  untrue ;  and 
the  Jews  must  have  known  their  falsity.  If  Judas 
had  no  interview  with  the  chief  priests  and  elders,  the 
Jews  must  have  known  it.  If  he  did  not  throw  down 
the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  in  the  temple,  the  Jews 
must  have  known  it.  If  he  did  not  hang  himself,  the 
Jews  must  have  known  it.  If  no  burying-ground  was 
bought  with  the  blood-money,  the  Jews  must  have 
known  it.  If  there  was  no  place  near  Jerusalem 
called  the  "field  of  blood,"  the  Jews  must  have  known 
it.  Now  who  was  it,  who  has  given  the  particulars 
of  Judas's  fate  and  the  purchase  of  the  potter's  field  ? 
Was  it  Mark  writing  to  the  citizens  of  Rome,  a  great 
way  off,  where  none  could  deny  or  confirm  his  state- 
ments? Was  it  John,  writing  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  when  all  that  knew  anything  of  the 
transaction  here  recorded,  had  passed  away  ?  No  !  it 
was  Matthew,  who  wrote  on  the  spot  where  these 
things  are  alleged  to  have  happened,  and  who  wrote 
for  those  who  knew  surely  whether  they  were  so.  It 
is  ever  regarded  as  a  strong  presumption  in  favour  of 
the  honesty  of  a  witness,  when  he  enters  into  minute 
details.  Falsehood  deals  in  generalities,  truth  in  cir- 
cumstantial statements.  An  apocryphal  writer  will 
not  commit  himself  by  an  explicit  declaration,  touch- 
ing any  matter  with  which  his  readers  are  familiar. 


92  THE    CKUCIFIXION 

But  Matthew  has  committed  himself  fully  and  com- 
pletely in  regard  to  the  potter's  field.  Everybody  at 
Jerusalem  must  have  known  whether  there  was  a  place 
for  the  burial  of  strangers,  and  how  it  came  to  be 
bought,  and  how  it  came  to  bear  so  remarkable  a 
name. 

31.  The  boldness  of  the  statements  of  Matthew  is 
prima  facie  proof  of  his  veracity:  and  it  amounts  to 
a  demonstration  of  truth  in  our  minds,  when  we  reflect 
that  he  tells  his  story,  with  all  its  rigid  attention  to 
little  matters,  in  the  presence  of  those  who  could  dis- 
credit it,  if  inaccurate  in  the  slightest  respect. 

But  these  verses  in  Matthew  contain  so  admirable 
a  representation  of  Pharisaism,  that  we  cannot  pass 
them  by,  without  making  an  additional  point.  Our 
Saviour,  in  his  inimitable  sermon  on  the  Mount,  gave 
a  faithful  picture  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  He 
showed  them  to  be  remarkably  conscientious  in  little 
matters  of  no  consequence  whatever,  and  utterly  de- 
void of  all  conscience  in  regard  to  those,  which  per- 
tained to  vital  piety  and  real  godliness.  He  showed 
them  to  be  great  sticklers  about  forms  and  ceremonies, 
the  mummeries  of  worship,  while  wholly  indifferent  to 
holiness  of  heart  and  life.  Again,  in  the  twenty-third 
chapter  of  Matthew,  he  said  of  them,  "Ye  pay  tithe 
of  mint,  and  anise,  and  cummin,  and  have  omitted  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  law,  judgment,  mercy,  and 
faith."  In  other  words,  they  had  such  tender  con- 
sciences in  the  matter  of  tithes,  that  they  assessed  and 
paid  a  tax  even  upon  those  things  which  were  not 


OF   CHRIST.  93 

taxable  in  their  polity,  but  notwithstanding  this,  they 
were  unjust,  cruel,  and  faithless  in  all  their  dealings 
with  their  fellow-creatures.  In  the  same  twenty-third 
chapter  of  Matthew,  Christ  likened  them  to  "whited 
sepulchres,  which  appear  beautiful  outward,  but  are 
within  full  of  dead  men's  bones,  and  all  uncleanness." 
They  were  careful  to  keep  up  a  specious  show  before 
the  world,  of  rectitude  and  propriety,  but  their  hearts 
were  full  of  abomination  and  pollution.  Now  the 
verses,  which  we  have  quoted,  in  reference  to  their 
conversation  with  Judas,  and  to  their  disposition  of 
the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  are  in  entire  harmony  with 
the  description  given  by  our  Saviour  of  their  hypo- 
critical character.  They  have  no  sympathy  with 
Judas  in  his  remorse.  They  turn  away  from  him 
with  contempt,  when  he  cries  out  in  his  agony,  "I 
have  betrayed  the  innocent  blood."  They  answer 
him,  with  the  scornful  "  What  is  that  to  us  ?  see  thou 
to  that."  They  have  no  relentings  of  mercy  towards 
the  spotless  victim,  whom  his  very  betrayer  had  pro- 
nounced to  be  innocent.  They  mock  him,  they  spit 
upon  him,  they  buffet  him,  they  cry  aloud,  "  Crucify 
him,  crucify  him."  They  jeer  and  taunt  him  when 
suffering,  bleeding,  and  dying.  They  thirst  for  his 
blood,  and  are  obdurate  to  the  last,  unrelenting,  inex- 
orable, implacable.  But  they  are  very  scrupulous 
about  the  disposition  of  the  bribe-money.  Their  ten- 
der consciences  will  not  permit  them  to  defile  the 
treasury  of  the  Lord  with  it.  And  how  benevolent 
they  are  withal !     They  buy  a  field  to  bury  strangers 


94  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

in.  How  kind  and  thoughtful  they  are  towards  for- 
eigners !  They  rise  superior  to  Jewish  bigotry  and 
prejudice  towards  the  natives  of  other  lands. 

What  a  strange  and  revolting  picture  is  here  pre- 
sented !  Men,  with  the  malice  of  hell  in  their  hearts, 
and  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God  hot  and  reeking  on 
their  hands,  are  very  zealous  for'  the  honour  of  the 
temple  of  the  Most  High,  and  tenderly  considerate  for 
strangers  and  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel. 
Ah !  the  picture  may  be  disgusting,  but  it  is  true  to 
life.  It  is  a  faithful  portrait  of  modern,  as  well  as 
ancient  Pharisaism.  Those  who  reject  the  Son  of 
God,  have  benevolence  ever  on  their  tongues,  while 
murder  is  in  their  hearts.  Their  consciences  are  ever 
keenly  sensitive  about  things  of  no  moment,  while 
they  are  seared  as  with  a  hot  iron  towards  all  that  is 
right,  and  pure,  and  good.  They  are  ever  troubled 
with  a  sanctimonious  scrupulosity  about  trifles  of  sup- 
posititious morality,  while  ignoring  the  mighty  claims 
of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  are  ever  raising 
nice  points  of  casuistry,  while  hating  Bible  truth,  and 
the  Author  of  all  truth. 

At  the  first  outbreak  of  Jacobin  fury  in  France, 
some  of  the  retainers  of  the  king  climbed  up  the 
statues  in  the  Garden  of  the  Tuileries,  in  the  vain 
hope  of  finding  shelter  and  concealment.  The  infidel 
mob  would  not  fire  at  them,  lest  the  balls  should  injure 
the  works  of  art,  but  pricked  them  with  their  bayo- 
nets, until  they  came  down,  and  then  murdered  them 
in  cold  blood.     They  cared  nothing   about  defacing 


OF   CHRIST.  95 

God's  image,  stamped  upon  his  creatures,  but  they 
were  scrupulous  about  defacing  the  handiwork  of  man. 
And  so  the  Jewish  infidel,  the  rejecter  of  Christ,  could 
shed  innocent  blood  without  the  slightest  compunction, 
but  he  was  too  conscientious  to  defile  the  temple  made 
with  hands.  Surely,  the  tender  mercies  of  the  wicked 
are  cruel.  Surely,  there  is  nothing  more  ruthless  and 
remorseless  than  Pharisaism.  Surely,  the  very  spirit 
of  the  pit  of  darkness  pervades  the  bosom  of  him  who 
is  ever  prating  about  the  law  of  conscience,  while 
trampling  under  foot  the  law  of  God. 

32.  We  have  seen  the  difficulty  attending  a  consist- 
ent representation  of  character.  Now,  as  the  picture 
of  Pharisaism  given  by  Matthew,  is  entirely  in  keep- 
ing from  beginning  to  end,  and  is  entirely  harmonious 
with  its  modern  phases,  we  are  constrained  to  regard 
him  as  a  truthful  writer,  guided  by  the  unerring 
inspiration  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

The  next  verses  in  order  (49-54)  are  in  these  words : 
"  When  they  which  were  about  him  saw  what  would 
follow,  they  said  unto  him,  Lord,  shall  we  smite  with 
the  sword  ?  And  one  of  them  smote  the  servant  of 
the  high-priest,  and  cut  off  his  right  ear.  And  Jesus 
answered,  and  said,  Suffer  ye  thus  far.  And  he 
touched  his  ear,  and  healed  him.  Then  Jesus  said 
unto  the  chief  priests,  and  captains  of  the  temple,  and 
the  elders,  which  were  come  to  him,  Be  ye  come  out, 
as  against  a  thief,  with  swords  and  staves  ?  When  I 
was  daily  with  you  in  the  temple,  ye  stretched  forth 
no  hands  against  me ;  but  this  is  your  hour,  and  the 


96  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

power  of  darkness.  Then  took  they  him,  and  led  him, 
and  brought  him  into  the  high-priest's  house.  And 
Peter  followed  afar  off." 

Luke,  as  we  see  from  these  verses,  puts  the  assault 
upon  the  servant  of  the  high-priest,  before  the  seizure 
of  Christ.  John  agrees  with  him ;  but  Matthew  and 
Mark  place  this  occurrence  after  the  seizure.  An 
attentive  consideration  of  the  parallel  statements  of 
the  Evangelists  will  reconcile  a  seeming  difference. 
We  learn  from  John,  that  after  Jesus  had  aroused  his 
sleeping  disciples,  he  advanced  towards  the  band  from 
the  chief  priests  and  elders,  "and  said  unto  them, 
Whom  seek  ye  ?  They  answered  him,  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth. Jesus  saith  unto  them,  I  am  he.  And  Judas 
also,  which  betrayed  him,  stood  with  them.  As  soon 
then  as  he  said  unto  them,  I  am  he,  they  went  back- 
ward, and  fell  to  the  ground.  Then  asked  he  them 
again,  Whom  seek  ye?  And  they  said,  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  Jesus  answered,  I  have  told  you  that  I 
am  he.  If  therefore  ye  seek  me,  let  these  go  their 
way.  That  the  saying  might  be  fulfilled,  which  he 
spake,  Of  them  which  thou  gavest  me,  have  I  lost 
none.  Then  Simon  Peter,  having  a  sword,  drew  it, 
and  smote  the  high-priest's  servant,  and  cut  off  his 
right  ear.  The  servant's  name  was  Malchus.  Then 
said  Jesus  unto  Peter,  Put  up  thy  sword  into  the 
sheath:  the  cup,  which  my  Father  hath  given  me, 
shall  I  not  drink  it  ?  Then  the  band,  and  the  captain, 
and  the  officers  of  the  Jews,  took  Jesus,  and  bound 
him."  John  xviii.  4-12. 


of  cnRisT.  97 

In  order  that  we  may  arrive  at  a  full  understanding 
of  this  matter,  we  must  recollect  that  all  the  Evan- 
gelists speak  of  the  servant  of  the  high-priest,  and 
John  even  designates  him  by  name.  He  must,  there- 
fore, have  stood  out  prominently  from  the  arresting 
party,  in  so  conspicuous  a  position,  that  he  could  be 
recognized  as  belonging  to  the  household  of  the  high- 
priest,  by  his  livery  or  peculiar  dress.  We  must 
recollect,  too,  that  John  makes  no  mention  of  Judas's 
advance  towards  Christ,  nor  yet  of  the  kiss  bestowed 
by  him.  On  the  contrary,  John  says  expressly,  that 
"Judas  stood  with  them"  (the  band,)  after  Jesus  had 
asked  the  question,  "Whom  seek  ye?"  Keeping 
these  things  in  view,  the  whole  transaction  becomes 
plain — Judas  advanced  before  the  band,  accompanied 
only  by  Malchus,  and  after  kissing  his  Master,  slunk 
back  with  shame  and  confusion  to  his  wicked  asso- 
ciates, upon  being  rebuked  for  his  hypocritical  act. 
Malchus,  however,  remained  and  laid  hands  upon 
Christ.  But  though  thus  humiliated  by  being  in  the 
custody  of  a  servant  of  the  basest  of  men,  and  though 
exhausted  by  his  agony,  his  bloody  sweat,  and  his 
long  night-vigil,  our  Saviour  addressed  himself  to  the 
crowd  with  so  much  dignity  and  majesty,  he  exhibited 
so  much  of  "God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  in  his  bear- 
ing and  in  the  tones  of  his  voice,  that  "they  all  went 
backward  and  fell  to  the  ground :  he  then  asked  again 
the  same  question,  "Whom  seek  ye?"  but  intimated 
at  the  same  time  that  he  would  submit  to  the  arrest, 
provided  his  followers  were  let  alone.  Encouraged 
9 


98  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

by  the  display  of  their  Master's  power,  and  by  tho 
discomfiture  of  his  enemies,  the  disciples  asked  the 
question  recorded  by  Luke,  "Lord,  shall  we  smite 
with  the  sword?"  Without  waiting  for  a  reply,  one 
of  them  drew  his  sword  and  cut  off  the  right  ear  of 
Malchus,  standing  most  likely  with  his  hands  upon 
Christ.  The  meek  and  gentle  Redeemer  rebuked  his 
disciple  for  this  act  of  violence,  and  stretched  forth 
his  hand  and  healed  the  wounded  ear.  And  it  ap- 
pears from  the  statement  of  Luke,  as  recorded  above, 
that  as  soon  as  the  Jews  heard  the  rebuke,  and  saw 
the  ear  restored,  they  took  courage,  perceiving  that 
Christ  did  not  intend  to  resist,  and  therefore  ad- 
vanced and  arrested  him. 

The  whole  difficulty,  then,  in  regard  to  the  time  of 
the  seizure  of  Christ,  disappears  by  the  simple  suppo- 
sition that  he  was  twice  seized ;  first,  by  Malchus,  and 
then  by  the  whole  Jewish  band.  Matthew  and  John, 
as  eye-witnesses,  differ  just  as  other  eye-witnesses  con- 
tinually differ,  because  their  testimony  refers  to  differ- 
ent transactions.  Matthew  alludes  to  the  first  seizure, 
which  was  really  before  the  assault  upon  the  servant 
of  the  high-priest.  John  alludes  to  the  more  import- 
ant arrest,  which  was  subsequent  to  that  event.  Mark, 
writing  under  the  direction  of  the  fiery  and  impetuous 
Peter,  puts  the  assault  after  the  seizure,  because  it 
was  the  indignity  offered  to  the  person  of  his  Master, 
which  provoked  Peter  to  strike.  Luke,  influenced  by 
his  profession  in  life,  notices  the  healing  of  the 
wounded  servant,  (which  the  other  three  Evangelists 


OF   CHRIST.  99 

say  nothing  about,)  and  therefore  naturally  places 
the  arrest  of  Christ  after  the  blow  of  Peter ;  because, 
it  was  that  act  of  healing,  which  encouraged  the  band 
to  make  the  final  seizure. 

33.  Now,  observe  that  there  is  difference  enough 
in  the  four  statements,  to  prove  the  absence  of  all 
previous  understanding ;  and  yet  not  so  much  as  not 
to  admit  of  easy  reconcilement.  Observe,  too,  that 
three  of  the  witnesses  preserve  their  individual  char- 
acteristics in  a  remarkable  manner.  Mark,  as  the 
amanuensis  of  Peter,  places  the  assault  after  the 
seizure,  because  it  was  thus  remembered  by  the  zeal- 
ous Galilean.  Luke  places  it  before  the  seizure, 
because  Luke,  as  a  physician,  had  in  his  mind  the  act 
of  healing,  which  encouraged  the  band  to  make  the 
final  arrest.  John,  ever  keeping  in  view  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  tells  of  the  overthrow  and  confusion  of  the 
Jews,  and  how  they  dared  not  approach  until  Jesus 
had  signified  his  intention  to  submit  to  their  authority, 
if  they  let  his  disciples  go.  John  therefore  places 
the  arrest  after  Christ's  command  to  Peter  to  put  up 
his  sword.  If  we  take  the  three  things  in  connec- 
tion: the  difficulty,  proving  the  absence  of  collusion; 
the  reconciling  of  it,  proving  the  integrity  of  the  wit- 
nesses ;  and  the  preservation  of  individuality,  proving 
the  authenticity  of  the  testimony ;  we  cannot  but  be 
satisfied  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel  narratives.  This 
three-fold  cord  cannot  be  broken.  This  triune  argu- 
ment cannot  be  refuted. 

The  different  accounts  in  regard  to  the  wounding 


100  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

of  the  servant  of  the  high-priest,  furnish  a  nice 
instance  of  independent,  yet  concurrent  testimony. 
Mark  says,  "And  one  of  them  that  stood  by  drew  a 
sword,  and  smote  a  servant  of  the  high-priest,  and  cut 
off  his  ear."  Everything  is  vague  and  indefinite  in 
this  statement.  For  all  that  we  know  to  the  contrary, 
he  may  have  been  a  casual  spectator  who  struck  the 
blow;  he  may  have  used  the  sword  of  another,  and 
not  his  own ;  he  may  have  struck  one  of  several  ser- 
vants of  the  high-priest ;  and  he  may  have  cut  off  the 
left  ear.  Matthew  is  more  explicit.  He  says,  "  One 
of  them  which  were  with  Jesus,  stretched  out  his  hand, 
and  drew  his  sword,  and  struck  a  servant  of  the  high- 
priest,  and  smote  off  his  ear."  The  assailant,  then, 
was  a  follower  of  Christ ;  but  it  is  left  doubtful  whe- 
ther he  was  a  disciple.  However,  it  is  settled  that  he 
used  his  own  sword.  Luke  settles  two  more  points : 
"And  one  of  them  (which  were  about  him)  smote  the 
servant  of  the  high-priest,  and  cut  off  his  right  ear." 
There  was,  then,  but  one  servant  of  the  high-priest 
present,  and  he  lost  his  right  ear.  Still  we  do  not 
know  who  struck  the  blow ;  nor  yet  who  the  servant 
was.  John,  however,  supplies  all  the  deficiencies  in 
the  narratives  of  the  other  witnesses :  "  Then  Simon 
Peter,  having  a  sword,  drew  it,  and  smote  the  high- 
priest's  servant,  and  cut  off  his  right  ear.  The  ser- 
vant's name  was  Malchus.11  Peter,  then,  was  the 
assailant,  and  Malchus  the  assailed. 

Was  there  ever  a  nicer  fitting  in  of  testimony  with 
testimony  ?     Was  there  ever  nicer  supplementing  by 


OF    CHRIST.  101 

one  witness,  of  a  lack  in  the  evidence  of  another? 
Was  there  ever  nicer  harmony  in  the  statements  of 
all,  coupled  with  just  difference  enough  to  prove  that 
there  was  no  preconcerted  tale?  Observe,  too,  that 
there  was  a  reason  why  the  first  three  Evangelists 
should  suppress  the  name  of  Peter.  They  wrote 
during  his  lifetime,  when  the  relation  of  his  assault 
upon  Malchus  might  prove  fatal  to  him.  But  John 
wrote  after  his  death,  when  the  knowledge  of  the 
transaction  could  do  him  no  harm.  Observe,  too,  how 
it  happened  that  John  knew  Malchus.  He  tells  us,  a 
little  farther  on  in  his  narrative,  of  his  intimacy  with 
the  high-priest,  and  with  his  household.  And  this  he 
tells  us,  not  to  account  for  his  knowing  Malchus,  but 
to  explain  a  totally  different  matter. 

34.  If  now  we  sum  up  our  evidence,  we  have  again 
a  three-fold  argument  to  present  to  the  jury.  First, 
the  reconcilable  and  reconciled  differences  among  the 
witnesses ;  second,  the  reason  why  John  is  the  only 
witness  to  name  Peter;  third,  the  explanation  of 
John's  acquaintance  with  Malchus. 

Matthew  and  John  tell  us  of  Christ's  rebuke  of 
Peter  for  his  blow ;  but  they  do  not  agree  about  the 
language  of  the  rebuke.  Mark  is  altogether  silent  in 
reference  to  it.  Luke's  "  Suffer  ye  thus  far,"  may  be 
construed  into  an  admonition  to  Peter  to  withhold  his 
hand,  but  it  scarcely  implies  censure.  Before  making 
another  point,  it  may  be  well  to  show,  that  the  rela- 
tion by  one  Evangelist,  of  a  thing  omitted  by  another, 
does  not  argue  any  disagreement  between  the  two. 
9* 


102  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

Had  Mark  expressly  said,  that  Christ  did  not  rebuke 
Peter,  he  would  have  flatly  contradicted  Matthew  and 
John.  But  his  failure  to  record  the  rebuke,  surely 
does  not  warrant  the  conclusion  that  there  was  no 
rebuke.  No  court  would  be  so  senseless  as  to  throw 
out  the  positive  testimony  of  two  witnesses  in  regard 
to  a  fact,  because  a  third  witness  omitted  the  mention 
of  it.  Moreover,  the  difference  between  Matthew, 
Luke,  and  John,  with  respect  to  the  words  of  censure 
used  by  Christ,  shows  no  contradiction.  If  each  of 
them,  after  giving  his  account,  had  added,  "  These  are 
the  precise  words  of  Jesus,  and  he  employed  no  other," 
then  we  could  not  reconcile  their  statements.  But  as 
they  make  no  such  declaration,  we  may  safely  con- 
clude that  Christ  used  the  language  recorded  by 
Matthew,  the  language  recorded  by  Luke,  and  the 
language  recorded  by  John.  And  we  accordingly 
find,  that  the  union  of  all  the  words  recorded,  in  one 
connected  sentence,  makes  just  such  an  address  as  we 
would  have  expected  from  the  Son  of  God :  "  Suffer 
ye  thus  far.  (Luke.)  Put  up  thy  sword  into  his  place : 
for  all  they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the 
sword.  Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  now  pray  to  my 
Father,  and  he  shall  presently  give  me  more  than 
twelve  legions  of  angels?  But  how  then  shall  the 
Scriptures  be  fulfilled,  that  thus  it  must  be?  (Mat- 
thew.) The  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me, 
shall  I  not  drink  it?"  (John.)  And  we  doubt  not, 
that  it  was  during  the  delivery  of  this  speech  that  he 
touched  the  ear  of  the  servant,  and  healed  it. 


or  Christ.  103 

The  argument,  for  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses, 
which  we  now  make,  is  drawn  from  the  fact  that  each 
of  them  preserves,  in  his  narration,  his  own  individ- 
uality. We  have  already  seen  that  John  says  more 
than  the  other  three  Evangelists  all  together,  of  the 
obedience  of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  We  will  show 
this  very  fully  hereafter.  For  the  present,  we  make 
the  assertion,  and  the  reader  can  verify  it  by  an 
examination  of  the  four  Gospels.  John,  then,  in 
recording  the  language  of  submission  of  the  Son, 
("the  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I 
not  drink  it?")  has  been  consistent  with  himself,  in 
ever  bringing  out  prominently  the  subordination  of 
the  Son  to  the  Father.  Luke  omits  much  of  the  ad- 
dress of  our  Lord,  and  only  records  enough  to  make 
intelligible  the  healing  of  Malchus.  As  a  physician, 
he  was  peculiarly  impressed  with  that  thing,  and 
therefore  hurries  on  in  his  narrative  to  tell  about  it. 
All  have  observed  how  rapidly  a  narrator  passes  on, 
who  is  impatient  to  reach  the  point  of  peculiar  inter- 
est to  himself.  Mark's  omission  of  the  address  of  our 
Saviour  to  Peter,  is  somewhat  surprising.  We  would 
naturally  expect  him  to  be  full  in  regard  to  a  matter 
of  personal  concern  to  the  man  for  whom  he  wrote. 
It  may  be  that  Peter,  in  the  excitement  of  his  assault, 
was  conscious  only  of  the  interposition  of  his  Master, 
and  not  aware  of  the  precise  language  which  he  em- 
ployed. But,  however  the  silence  of  Mark  may  be 
explained,  he  preserves  his  individuality  in  that  very 


104  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

silence.  It  is  well  known  that  he  is  more  brief  and 
less  circumstantial  than  the  other  Evangelists. 

The  part  of  our  Lord's  address  which  Matthew  has 
recorded,  is  just  that  which  we  would  expect  him  to 
record.  We  understand  the  words,  "All  they  that 
take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword,"  to  be 
admonitory  as  well  as  prophetic.  They  are  a  warning 
to  the  Jews,  not  to  rebel  against  the  Roman  govern- 
ment, and  a  prophecy  that  rebellion  would  result  in 
the  overthrow  and  destruction  of  their  nation.  Mat- 
thew, writing  for  his  countrymen,  the  Jews,  before 
their  revolt,  could  not,  with  any  propriety,  pass  by 
this  fearful  threat  against  insurrection.  It  would  do 
no  good  for  those  to  know  it,  to  whom  Mark  and  Luke 
wrote.  And  as  John's  gospel  was  written  after  the 
desolation  of  Judea,  it  would  have  been  idle  in  him  to 
record  a  warning  already  too  late,  and  a  prophecy 
already  fulfilled.  Besides,  if  he,  instead  of  Matthew, 
had  recorded  the  caution  and  prediction,  cavillers 
would  not  be  slow  to  raise  the  objection  that  it  was 
the  knowledge  of  the  event  which  prompted  the 
record.  But  to  confound  infidelity,  this  allusion  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is  contained  in  the  nar- 
rative of  the  Jewish  Evangelist,  and  was  written  before 
the  sword  had  been  taken.  And  so,  too,  the  more 
full  and  detailed  prophecies  in  regard  to  that  event 
are  found  in  the  first  three  Evangelists,  while  John 
says  not  a  word  about  it.  (See  Matt,  xxiv;  Mark 
xiii;  Luke  xxi.) 

We  observe,  furthermore,  that  Matthew's  allusion 


OF   CHRIST.  105 

to  twelve  legions  of  angels,  would  be  readily  appreci- 
ated by  the  Jews,  whose  government  and  polity  em- 
braced so  much  of  this  duodecimal  division,  and  whose 
history  was  so  full  of  instances  of  angelic  aid  and 
interposition.  But  this  allusion  would  be  wholly  lost 
on  those  for  whom  Mark  wrote.  In  like  manner,  as 
Mark  does  not  write  to  show  the  divine  and  human 
natures  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth — his  equality  with  and 
his  subordination  to  God,  the  Father ;  it,  of  course, 
did  not  come  within  the  scope  of  his  narrative  to 
record  the  language  of  submission  of  the  Son,  "  the 
cup  which  my  father  hath  given  me,  shall  I  not  drink 
it?"  So  then,  we  have  another  and  a  stronger  rea- 
son for  Mark's  silence  in  regard  to  Christ's  rebuke  of 
Peter.  The  part  which  Matthew  records,  was  in- 
tended as  a  warning  to  the  Jews,  and  therefore  out 
of  place  in  a  gospel  for  Romans.  The  part  which 
John  records  is  doctrinal  (as  we  will  see  more  fully 
hereafter)  and  therefore  appropriate  in  the  record  of 
a  polemic  writer,  but  not  consistent  with  the  plan  of 
Mark's  narrative. 

35.  The  maintenance  of  individual  characteristics, 
is  always  esteemed  an  infallible  criterion  of  integrity 
in  witnesses.  And  the  reason  of  it  is  obvious.  If  a 
fictitious  tale  were  gotten  up,  three  or  four  men  could 
not  tell  it  in  their  own  way,  using  their  own  language 
and  preserving  their  own  individuality,  without  being 
betrayed  into  inconsistencies  and  discrepancies.  And 
as  the  four  Evangelists  have  been  perfectly  natural 
and  true  to  themselves   in   their    independent    state- 


106  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

merits,  and  yet  have  made  a  consistent  and  harmonious 
account,  it  is  impossible  to  resist  the  conclusion  that 
they  were  honest  and  truthful  men. 

Another  argument  is  suggested  by  the  character- 
istic testimony  of  John,  an  argument  based  upon  the 
consistency  of  that  testimony.  We  propose  to  show 
that  he  has  linked  and  interlinked  indissolubly  to- 
gether, the  doctrines  of  the  humanity  and  divinity  of 
our  adorable  Saviour ;  and  that  he  has  done  this,  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  Gospel.  We  will  en- 
deavour, moreover,  to  show  that  he  is  not  only  con- 
sistent with  himself  in  his  teaching,  at  all  times,  and 
under  all  circumstances,  but  that  he  is  also  consist- 
ent with  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures. Since  John  is  preeminently  the  doctrinal 
writer  among  the  Evangelists,  it  is  right  that  we  should 
examine  thoroughly  and  weigh  carefully  his  infallible 
instructions. 

We  have  seen  that  he  is  the  only  Evangelist  who 
speaks  of  that  manifestation  of  divine  power  on  the 
part  of  Christ,  which  resulted  in  the  prostration  of 
the  Jewish  leaders  and  their  gang.  We  have  also 
seen  that  he  is  the  only  one  who  mentions  the  Son's 
language  of  resignation  to  his  Father's  will,  "  The  cup 
which  my  Father  has  given  me,  shall  I  not  drink  it?" 
He  is  perfectly  consistent  with  himself  in  thus  allud- 
ing to  the  independent  power  of  Christ,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  his  subordination  to  the  Father.  For 
he  never  alludes  to  the  divinity  of  Christ,  without  also 
alluding  to  his  humanity ;  and  conversely,   he  never 


OF   CHRIST.  107 

speaks  of  his  humanity  without  an  explicit  declaration 
of  his  divinity,  in  the  very  same  connection.  He  is 
careful  to  give  no  uncertain  teaching,  in  regard  to 
the  "two  distinct  natures"  and  "one  person"  of  our 
precious  Saviour. 

After  reiterating  again  and  again,  the  divine  attri- 
butes of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  in  the  first  thirteen  verses 
of  his  first  chapter,  he  adds  in  the  fourteenth  verse, 
"and  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us." 

In  the  second  chapter,  we  are  told  how  Jesus 
"manifested  forth  his  glory"  by  an  act  of  creative 
power  in  "  Cana  of  Galilee;"  and  how  with  divine 
energy  he  drove  the  traders  out  of  his  Father's  house : 
and  how  he  proclaimed  his  ability  to  raise  his  own 
body  from  the  grave;  and  how  he  read  the  hearts  of 
men.  And  yet,  in  the  same  chapter,  we  are  told  of 
his  mother  and  his  brethren,  and  we  have  a  prophecy 
of  his  death  as  a  man. 

In  the  third  chapter,  we  have  these  remarkable 
words,  "and  no  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but 
he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of 
man,  which  is  in  heaven."  Here  Jesus  speaks  of 
himself  as  a  man,  and  as  having  come  down  from 
heaven,  notwithstanding  his  humanity,  and  as  being 
in  heaven  at  the  very  moment  he  was  conversing  on 
earth.  Language  cannot  convey  more  definitely  and 
precisely  the  great  doctrine  upon  which  hang  our 
hopes  for  time  and  eternity. 

In  the  fourth  chapter,  John,  after  telling  how  the 
humanity  of  Christ  was  manifested  by  weariness  and 


108  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

thirst  at  Jacob's  well,  tells  also  how  he,  as  God,  read 
the  heart  of  the  woman  of  Samaria,  and  revealed  the 
secrets  of  her  past  life. 

Again,  in  the  fifth  chapter,  John  is  very  explicit 
in  regard  to  the  union  of  the  two  natures.  There 
can  be  no  misunderstanding  of  the  18th  and  19th 
verses  of  this  chapter :  "  Therefore,  the  Jews  sought 
the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only  had  broken 
the  Sabbath,  but  said  also,  that  God  was  his  Father, 
making  himself  equal  with  God.  Then  answered 
Jesus,  and  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he 
seeth  the  Father  do,  for  what  things  soever  he  doeth, 
these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise."  Here  is  first  the 
equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father ;  next,  the  sub- 
ordination of  the  Son  to  the  Father ;  and  finally,  the 
performance  by  the  Son  of  deeds  equal  with  those  of 
the  Father.  Again  does  John  teach  the  same  great 
truths  in  the  28th,  29th,  and  30th  verses  of  this  chap- 
ter :  "  Marvel  not  at  this,  for  the  hour  is  coming,  in 
the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his 
voice,  and  shall  come  forth:  they  that  have  done 
good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  &c,  ...  I  can  of 
my  own  self  do  nothing  ...  I  seek  not  my  own  will, 
but  the  will  of  the  Father  which  sent  me."  Here  it 
is  declared  that  he,  at  whose  command  the  graves 
shall  open  and  the  dead  come  forth,  can,  of  himself, 
do  nothing,  and  that  he  came  on  earth  in  obedience 
to  the  order  of  his  Father. 

In  the  sixth  chapter,  John  teaches  the  subserviency 


OF   CHRIST.  109 

of  the  Son  to  the  Father :  "  I  came  down  from  heaven, 
not  to  do  my  own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent 
sent  me."  And  in  the  same  chapter,  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  is  taught  with  equal  clearness:  "Not  that  any 
man  hath  seen  the  Father,  save  he  which  is  of  God ; 
he  hath  seen  the  Father.  ...  I  am  the  living  bread, 
which  came  down  from  heaven.  .  .  .  Whoso  eateth 
my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life; 
and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  He  can  be 
no  other  than  God,  who  has  seen  the  Father,  who  is 
of  God,  who  gives  eternal  life,  and  who  will  raise  the 
dead  in  the  last  great  day. 

In  the  seventh  chapter,  we  have  these  words :  "  But 
I  know  him  (God ;)  for  I  am  from  him,  and  he  hath 
sent  me."  Here  Christ  speaks  of  the  intimate  union 
between  himself  and  the  Father,  and  yet,  at  the  same 
time,  of  his  being  subject  to  the  will  of  the  Father. 
In  this  chapter,  also,  we  have  the  solemn  declaration 
of  the  JeA?ish  officers,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  not 
a  mere  man :  "  The  officers  answered,  Never  man 
spake  like  this  man." 

The  eighth  chapter  is  replete  with  allusions  to  the 
two  natures  and  one  person  in  Christ.  A  great,  wise, 
and  pious  commentator  has  said  of  this  chapter,  "In 
several  places  our  Lord  shows  his  intimate  union 
with  the  Father,  in  will,  doctrine,  and  deed;  and 
though  he  never  confounds  the  persons,  yet  he  evi- 
dently shows  that  such  was  the  indivisible  unity  sub- 
sisting between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  that  what 
the  one  Avitnessed,  the  other  witnessed;  what  the  one 
10 


110  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

did,  the  other  did;  and  that  he  who  saw  the  one, 
necessarily  saw  the  other."  (Adam  Clarke.)  We  will 
give  a  few  extracts :  "  I  proceeded  forth,  and  came 
from  God;  neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  he  sent 
me.  ...  I  honour  my  Father.  ...  I  seek  not  my 
own  glory.  .  .  .  The  Father  hath  not  left  me  alone ; 
for  I  do  always  those  things  that  please  him."  The 
obedience  and  dutifulness  of  the  Son  are  herein  clearly 
set  forth.  But  a  little  farther  on,  the  Man  of  Calvary 
arrogates  to  himself  the  name  of  the  ever-living,  self- 
existent  God:  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  Com- 
pare this  language  with  the  14th  verse  of  the  third 
chapter  of  Exodus :  "And  God  said,  I  AM  THAT  I 
AM.  And  he  said,  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  I  AM  hath  sent  me."  Who  can 
doubt  that  John  meant  to  teach,  that  the  lowly  Naza- 
rene  was  the  great  and  terrible  I  AM — the  eternal, 
uncreated  God? 

In  the  ninth  chapter,  we  are  told  that  before  Jesus, 
by  his  own  divine  power,  had  restored  sight  to  the 
blind  man,  he  expressed  his  subserviency  to  his  Father : 
"I  must  work  the  works  of  him  that  sent  me."  John 
tells  us,  too,  how  the  man,  when  cured  of  his  blind- 
ness, offered  divine  homage  to  his  great  Physician. 

The  tenth  chapter  is  peculiarly  rich  in  regard  to 
the  combination  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in 
our  Lord:  "As  the  Father  knoweth  me,  even  so 
know  I  the  Father ;  and  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the 
sheep.  .  .  .  No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it 
down  of  myself.     I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I 


OF   CHRIST.  Ill 

have  power  to  take  it  up  again.  This  commandment 
have  I  received  of  my  Father."  Here  the  divinity 
of  Christ  is  shown  by  the  reciprocal  knowledge  and 
intimate  relations  between  him  and  the  Father.  Next, 
his  humanity  is  manifested  by  the  laying  down  of  his 
life :  again,  his  divinity,  by  his  lordship  over  life  and 
death;  and,  finally,  his  subjection  to  the  Father,  by  a 
command  received  from  him.  Again,  we  hear  Jesus 
saying:  "And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  and 
they  shall  never  perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck 
them  out  of  my  hand."  The  giver  of  eternal  life  must 
be  God.  He  whose  power  is  sufficient  to  secure  from 
all  harm  and  danger,  must  be  God.  But  lest  we 
should  infer  from  this  language,  his  independence  of 
the  Father,  he  immediately  adds  :  "My  Father,  which 
gave  them  me,  is  greater  than  all ;  and  no  man  is  able 
to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Father's  hand."  And  that 
we  might  not  mistake  this  apparently  contradictory 
doctrine  of  independent  and  delegated  power,  "the 
carpenter's  son"  proclaims  his  oneness  with  the  Lord 
God  Almighty :  "land  my  Father  are  one."  And 
when  the  Jews  take  up  stones  to  stone  him  for  blas- 
phemy, he  repeats  the  same  compound  idea:  "If  I 
do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not.  But 
if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works ; 
that  ye  may  know  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in 
me,  and  I  in  him." 

In  the  eleventh  chapter,  Jesus,  as  God,  speaks  of 
the  death  of  Lazarus;  calls  himself  the  resurrection 
and  the  life ;  and  arouses  the  dead  man  in  his  grave. 


112  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

As  man,  he  weeps  in  sympathy  with  the  bereaved 
sisters  of  Lazarus,  and  prays  unto  the  Father. 

A  comparison  of  the  41st  verse  of  the  twelfth  chap- 
ter with  the  1st  verse  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  will 
prove  that  John  believed  his  Master  to  be  the  "Lord 
sitting  upon  a  throne,  high  and  lifted  up."  And  that 
there  might  be  no  mistake  about  it,  he  gives  the  ex- 
plicit claim  of  the  Son  to  identity  with  the  Father : 
"He  that  seeth  me,  seeth  Him  that  sent  me."  And 
immediately  after,  the  obedience  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father  is  taught  in  equally  intelligible  language :  "For 
I  have  not  spoken  of  myself;  but  the  Father,  which 
sent  me,  he  gave  me  a  commandment  what  I  should 
say,  and  what  I  should  speak."  In  this  chapter,  also, 
we  are  told  of  his  soul  being  troubled,  even  as  the  soul 
of  a  man  is  troubled ;  and  of  his  prayer  of  distress  to 
the  Father.  But  in  the  same  connection,  we  have  an 
account  of  the  Father's  voice  speaking  from  heaven  to 
his  Son  and  coequal. 

In  the  thirteenth  chapter,  John  tells  of  his  Master 
washing  the  disciples'  feet;  but  he  prefaces  the  ac- 
count with  these  remarkable  words:  "When  Jesus 
knew  that  his  hour  had  come,  that  he  should  depart 
out  of  this  world  unto  the  Father,  having  loved  his 
own  which  were  in  the  world,  he  loved  them  unto  the 
end."  Here  is  omniscience  ascribed  to  him  who  was 
about  to  humble  himself  to  perform  the  office  of  a  ser- 
vant. In  the  19th  verse,  we  are  told  how  he  again 
claimed  to  be  the  I  AM ;  and  immediately  after,  how 
"he   was   troubled   in   spirit;"    but   notwithstanding 


OF    CHRIST.  113 

this  exhibition    of  humanity,   how  he  predicted   the 
betrayal  by  Judas,  and  the  denial  by  Peter. 

In  the  fourteenth  chapter,  Jesus  claims,  in  the 
plainest  possible  language,  identity  of  essence  with 
the  Father:  "If  ye  had  known  me,  ye  had  known  my 
Father  also ;  and  from  henceforth  ye  know  him,  and 
have  seen  him.  .  .  .  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen 
the  Father.  And  how  sayest  thou  then,  Show  us  the 
Father  ?  Believest  thou  not,  that  I  am  in  the  Father, 
and  the  Father  in  me  ?  .  .  .  Believe  me,  that  I  am  in 
the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me."  But  he  will  not 
permit  us  to  overlook  his  humanity,  for  he  says,  soon 
after,  "My  Father  is  greater  than  I." 

In  the  fifteenth  chapter,  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
and  human  natures  is  taught  in  the  same  sentence : 
"He  that  hateth  me,  hateth  my  Father  also.  If  I 
had  not  done  among  them  the  works  which  none  other 
man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin :  but  now  have  they 
both  seen  and  hated  both  me  and  my  Father."  The 
humanity  of  Christ,  and  his  oneness  with  the  Father, 
are  here  declared  in  an  unmistakable  manner. 

In  the  sixteenth  chapter,  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity 
seems  to  have  special  prominence  :  "And  these  things 
will  they  do  unto  you,  because  they  have  not  known 
the  Father  nor  me."  The  unity  of  the  Father  and 
Son  is  here  plainly  taught:  "For  if  I  go  not  away, 
the  Comforter  will  not  come ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will 
send  him.  unto  you."  He  who  can  send  the  Holy 
Spirit,  must  be  God:  "He  (the  Comforter)  shall  glo- 
rify me ;  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall  show 
10* 


114  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

it  unto  you.  All  things  that  the  Father  hath  are 
mine;  therefore  said  I,  that  he  shall  take  of  mine, 
and  shall  show  it  unto  you."  He  whom  the  Holy 
Ghost  glorifies,  must  be  God.  He  who  has  all  things 
in  common  with  the  Father,  must  be  God.  The  Father 
has  said  of  himself,  "I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous 
God."  Exod.  xx.  5,  xxxiv.  14;  Deut.  iv.  24,  v.  9, 
vi.  15 ;  Josh.  xxiv.  19.  He  has  said,  "  My  glory  will 
I  not  give  unto  another."  Isa.  xlii.  8.  Since  then 
he  has  given  his  glory  to  Jesus — Jesus  cannot  be 
"another,"  but  must  be  one  with  the  Father. 

The  seventeenth  chapter  is  peculiarly  instructive : 
"  Glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy  Son  also  may  glorify 
thee.  .  .  .  And  now,  0  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with 
thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee 
before  the  world  was."  Can  this  be  the  language  of 
a  created  being  ?  Can  there  be  reciprocal  glorifying 
between  the  creature  and  Creator  ?  Would  it  not  be 
the  highest  blasphemy,  for  a  finite  being  to  pray  that 
God  might  glorify  him  with  his  own  self?  Will  he, 
whose  "name  is  Jealous,"  (Exod.  xxxiv.  14,)  impart 
his  essence  to  a  thing  of  time?  Is  it  possible  to 
believe  that  the  loftiest  angel  nearest  the  throne, 
shared,  in  common  with  the  Father,  his  incommunica- 
ble glory,  "before  the  world  was"?  Again,  he  says: 
"And  all  mine  are  thine,  and  thine  are  mine."  Is  it 
not  the  height  of  folly  and  wickedness,  to  say  that 
there  can  be  this  interchange  and  intercommunication 
between  the  living  God  and  any  inferior  intelligence  ? 
And  yet  notwithstanding  these  strong  expressions  in 


OF    CHRIST.  115 

the  seventeenth  chapter,  to  establish  the  doctrine  of 
the  divinity  of  our  blessed  Redeemer,  we  have  in  it 
also  the  fullest  teaching  in  regard  to  his  humanity. 
"  That  he  (the  Son)  should  give  eternal  life  unto  as 
many  as  thou  hast  given  him.  .  .  .  Jesus  Christ 
whom  thou  hast  sent.  ...  I  have  finished  the  work 
which  thou  gavest  me  to  do.  .  .  .  All  things  whatso- 
ever thou  hast  given  me.  .  .  .  And  they  have  be- 
lieved that  thou  didst  send  me.  ...  As  thou  hast 
sent  me  into  the  world.  .  .  .  That  the  world  may 
believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.  .  .  .  These  have 
known  that  thou  hast  sent  me."  In  all  these  phrases, 
the  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  is  clearly 
set  forth.  The  24th  verse  embraces  the  compound 
idea  of  the  Son's  equality  and  inferiority.  "Father, 
I  will  that  they  also,  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  be 
with  me  where  I  am ;  that  they  may  behold  my  glory, 
which  thou  hast  given  me ;  for  thou  lovedst  me  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  Here  is  the  demand 
of  a  sovereign,  rather  than  the  petition  of  a  suppli- 
cant. It  is  a  prayer,  but  the  basis  of  it  is  the  ivill  of 
the  Son,  and  the  reason  for  granting  it  is  that  his 
glory  may  be  manifested.  And  yet  while  he  makes 
this  lofty  assumption  of  sovereignty,  he  thankfully 
acknowledges  the  gifts  of  the  Father.  The  Trinita- 
rian scheme  harmonizes  this  apparently  contradictory 
language,  but  it  must  for  ever  remain,  in  the  creed  of 
Socinianism,  inconsistent  and  irreconcilable. 

We  have  already  noticed  the  instruction  imparted 
by  John  in  the  eighteenth  chapter,  in  regard  to  the 


116  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

two-fold  nature  in  Christ.  We  have  an  account  in 
this  chapter  of  his  overthrow  of  an  armed  host  by  a 
simple  question,  and  immediately  after,  of  his  express- 
ing the  most  perfect  submission  to  his  Father's  will. 

In  the  nineteenth  chapter,  we  learn  how  our  pre- 
cious Redeemer,  in  three  ways,  manifested  his  human 
nature;  first,  by  his  thirst;  second,  by  his  cry,  "It 
is  finished" — the  work  given  me  by  my  Father  has 
been  performed;  third,  by  the  water  and  the  blood, 
which  flowed  from  his  side.  John  has  omitted  the 
three  proofs  of  his  divinity,  given  by  the  other  Evan- 
gelists :  first,  the  earthquake,  which  rent  the  veil  of 
the  temple,  and  opened  the  graves  of  the  saints,  show- 
ing thereby  his  sovereignty  over  the  earth;  second, 
the  darkening  of  the  sun,  showing  his  sovereignty  over 
the  solar  system  and  stellar  universe ;  third,  his  par- 
don of  the  thief,  and  promise  to  him  of  life  eternal, 
showing  his  sovereignty  over  the  heaven  of  heavens. 
Still,  John  has  given  us  more  fully  than  the  other 
Evangelists,  the  proofs  of  Christ's  absolute  control 
over  his  own  life.  He  alone  of  the  gospel  writers  re- 
cords the  saying  of  our  Lord,  "I  lay  down  my  life 
that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man  taketh  it  from 
me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself."  And  now,  in 
verification  of  this  assertion,  the  beloved  disciple  tells 
us  in  this  nineteenth  chapter  that  Jesus  "bowed  his 
head  and  gave  up  the  ghost" — the  Greek  word  ex- 
pressing the  act  of  dying  by  his  own  free  will.  All 
the  Evangelists  are  careful  to  avoid  saying  that  Jesus 
died,  and  employ  a  word  which  signifies  the  voluntary 


OF    CHRIST.  117 

"breathing  out"  of  the  breath  of  life.  (See  Dr. 
Alexander  on  Mark.)  But  there  is  this  marked  dif- 
ference between  the  other  writers  and  John.  They 
all  agree  in  conveying  the  idea  that  the  death  of 
Jesus  was  the  result  of  his  own  sovereign  volitimi; 
but  John  alone  gives  the  evidence  of  this,  by  showing 
that  the  death  of  the  two  malefactors  had  to  be  has- 
tened by  breaking  their  legs,  and  that  not  a  bone  of 
the  paschal  lamb  was  broken,  because  he  was  already 
dead.  And  thus  it  appears  that  John,  who  alone  had 
related  the  claim  of  Jesus  to  power  over  his  own  life, 
has  alone  demonstrated  the  justness  of  the  claim,  by 
telling  that  he  gave  up  the  ghost  after  a  few  hours 
suffering;  when  it  is  well  known  that  the  crucified 
usually  lingered  in  agony  for  days,  unless  additional 
violence  were  offered  to  shorten  their  lives.* 

In  the  twentieth  chapter,  John  teaches,  with  his 
usual  precision,  the  doctrine  of  the  two  natures.  We 
select  a  single  passage,  which  embraces  the  dual  idea 
in  all  its  completeness.  "  Then  saith  he  to  Thomas, 
Reach  hither  thy  finger  and  behold  my  hands;  and 
reach  hither  thy  hand  and  thrust  it  into  my  side: 
and  be  not  faithless,  but  believing.  And  Thomas 
answered  and  said  unto  him,  My  Lord,  and  my  God." 
(Vers.  27,  28.)  Here  Thomas  most  unequivocally  and 
undeniably  acknowledges  his  Master  to  be  God  over 
all,  blessed  for  ever ;  but  the  acknowledgment  is  drawn 

*  Campbell,  in  Ms  Four  Gospels,  strengthens  this  view  of  Christ's 
voluntary  death,  by  his  rendering  of  Mark  xv.  44.  "And  Pilate 
was  amazed  that  he  was  so  soon  dead." 


118  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

from  him  by  the  marks  of  humanity  on  the  sacred 
person  of  our  Lord.  Doubtless,  the  prints  of  the  nails 
and  the  wound  in  the  side  not  only  convinced  unbe- 
lieving Thomas  of  the  personal  identity  of  Jesus,  but 
also  brought  to  his  recollection  all  those  prophecies 
which  spoke  of  the  Messiah  as  both  God  and  man. 
A  flood  of  light  was  let  in  upon  him  in  a  moment, 
and  the  whole  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures became  plain  to  him.  Then  he  understood  how 
the  child  born  unto  us,  and  the  son  given  unto  us, 
could  be  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father. 
Then  he  understood  how  the  son  born  of  a  virgin 
could  be  Immanuel,  God  with  us.  And,  therefore,  it 
was  that  he  worshipped  the  risen  Saviour,  as  his  Lord 
and  his  God.  We  are  amazed  that  the  28th  verse 
above,  is  so  often  quoted  in  controversies  with  the 
Unitarians,  while  the  27th  is  so  completely  ignored. 
The  withholding  of  the  latter  verse  impairs  the  force 
of  the  former,  and  utterly  destroys  the  great  truth  (as 
we  believe)  meant  to  be  taught,  viz.,  that  Thomas 
arrived  at  his  belief  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  through 
the  traces  of  his  suffering  humanity. 

In  the  twenty-first  chapter,  the  divine  nature  of 
Christ  is  the  paramount  doctrine.  This  is  shown  by 
the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  and  by  his  foretell- 
ing by  what  death  Peter  should  glorify  God.  Nor 
have  we  any  evidence  of  his  humanity,  unless  we  as- 
sume that  he  himself  partook  of  the  bread  and  fish, 
which  he  gave  the  disciples.  It  was  fit  that  the 
divinity  of  the  Saviour  should  have  a  prominent  place 


OF   CHRIST.  119 

in  the  last  instructions  of  the  Evangelist,  who  wrote 
mainly  to  confute  the  heresy  on  that  subject,  which 
had  crept  into  the  church.  But  we  will  grossly  per- 
vert the  teaching  of  John,  if  we  overlook  the  fact  that 
he  joins  together  the  doctrines  of  the  divinity  and 
humanity,  and  seems  fearful  of  separating  them,  so 
that  when  he  speaks  of  Jesus  as  God,  he,  in  the  same 
breath,  speaks  of  him  as  man ;  and  oftentimes  again, 
as  God,  and  again  as  man ;  and  then  as  both  God  and 
man.  He  employs  every  variety  of  expression,  and 
every  form  of  words,  to  teach  the  union  of  the  two 
natures.  He  nicely  balances  his  language,  so  that 
the  teaching  of  the  oneness  of  the  Son  with  the  .Father 
does  not  outweigh  nor  underweigh  his  teaching  of  the 
humanity  of  the  Son.  And  throughout  his  whole 
gospel,  he  preserves  the  same  unity  of  plan,  the  same 
consistency  of  instruction.  It  is  only  necessary  to 
read  his  whole  system  of  theology  to  form  a  correct 
opinion  upon  the  most  vital  points  of  Christian  faith. 
Heresy  has  ever  taken  an  isolated  text  here,  and  a 
garbled  extract  there,  to  support  its  pernicious  tenets. 
The  honest,  candid,  prayerful  reading  of  every  pas- 
sage touching  the  Messiah,  with  the  context,  must 
satisfy  the  sincere  inquirer  after  truth,  that  "The 
Son  of  God,  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity,  is  very 
and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance,  and  equal  with  the 
Father." 

But  we  started  out  with  the  proposition  that  John 
was  consistent  with  himself  throughout  his  whole  nar- 
rative, in  teaching  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human 


120  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

natures  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  that  he 
was  also  consistent  with  the  plain  instructions  of  the 
holy  men  of  old.  Our  first  position  is,  we  trust,  firmly 
established.  It  only  remains  to  show  that  the  doc- 
trines inculcated  by  John,  comport  with  the  prophe- 
cies respecting  the  Messiah.  Isaiah  speaks  thus  of 
the  promised  deliverer,  "For  unto  us  a  child  is  born, 
unto  us  a  son  is  given :  and  the  government  shall  be 
upon  his  shoulder :  and  his  name  shall  be  called  Won- 
derful, Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting 
Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace."  Isaiah  ix.  6. 

The  first  part  of  this  verse  plainly  teaches  that  the 
mysterious  being  spoken  of  had  a  true  human  nature, 
while  the  latter  part  proves  his  identity  with  "the 
King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the  only  wise  God." 
Again,  Isaiah  says,  "Behold,  a  virgin  shall  conceive, 
and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel." 
Here  the  offspring  of  the  virgin  is  to  be  called  "  God 
with  us,"  as  the  name  Immanuel  signifies.  As  God 
will  not  give  his  "glory  to  another,"  how  is  it  pos- 
sible to  suppose  that  he  will  permit  this  Son  of 
the  virgin  to  assume  his  name,  unless  the  child  be 
of  the  same  substance,  the  same  essence,  and  the 
same  eternal  existence  with  Jehovah  himself?  Paul 
quotes  the  forty-fifth  Psalm  in  proof  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ.  (See  Hebrews,  first  chapter.)  In  this 
Psalm,  a  king  is  introduced,  who  is  fairer  than  the 
children  of  men,  into  whose  lips  grace  has  been  poured, 
and  upon  whom  the  blessing  of  God  rests  for  ever. 
In  the  6th  verse,  this  fair,  gracious,  and  blessed  king, 


OF    CHRIST.  121 

is  distinctly  and  emphatically  addressed  as  God: 
"  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever :  the  sceptre 
of  thy  kingdom  is  a  right  sceptre."  But  in  the  very 
next  verse,  he  is  said  to  have  been  rewarded  by  God 
for  his  love  of  righteousness  and  hatred  of  iniquity : 
"  Thou  lovest  righteousness,  and  hatest  wickedness ; 
therefore,  God,  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the 
oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows."  Who  can  he  be, 
who  thus  enjoys  the  favour  and  approbation  of  God, 
and  yet  is  truly  God  himself?  Surely,  he  can  be  no 
other  than  Christ  Jesus,  who,  though  "in  the  likeness 
of  men,"  "thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God."  Philip,  ii.  6,  7.  Surely,  this  King  must  be 
"the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,  the  King  of  kings, 
and  Lord  of  lords."  Rom.  ix.  5. 

Jeremiah  speaks  of  the  same  sovereign  predicted  by 
David,  and  prophesies  that  he  shall  be  of  the  house 
and  lineage  of  David:  "Behold,  the  days  come,  saith 
the  Lord,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous 
Branch,  and  a  King  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  shall 
execute  judgment  and  justice  in  the  earth.  .  .  .  And 
this  is  the  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  THE 
LORD  OUR  RIGHTEOUSNESS."  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  G. 
The  word  rendered  Lord,  in  this  place,  means  literally 
Jehovah — the  name  of  God,  so  much  revered  by  the 
Jews.  The  branch  and  offspring  of  David,  partaking 
of  his  mortal  nature,  is  the  absolute  God  of  the  uni- 
verse. But  in  addition  to  the  fact,  that  the  descend- 
ant of  David  is  expressly  called  Jehovah,  it  is  evident 
that  God  cannot  be  our  righteousness  in  any  other 
11 


122  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

way  than  through  his  co-equal  Son.  The  righteous- 
ness of  Jesus  Jehovah  becomes  the  believer's,  and  thus 
only  can  the  righteousness  of  God  become  his.  And 
to  this  effect  is  the  teaching  of  Paul:  "Christ  Jesus, 
who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteous- 
ness, and  sanctification,  and  redemption."  1  Cor.  i.  30. 
In  Isaiah  xl.  9.  11,  we  find  the  same  name,  Jehovah, 
given  to  a  Being  who  is  evidently  the  "  Good  Shep- 
herd," that  "giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep."  Another 
prophet  speaks  thus :  "Awake,  0  sword,  against  my 
Shepherd,  and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith 
the  Lord  of  hosts :  smite  the  Shepherd,  and  the  sheep 
shall  be  scattered ;  and  I  will  turn  my  hand  upon  the 
little  ones."  Zech.  xiii.  7.  Here  the  sword  is  to  be 
aroused  against  a  man,  who  is  yet  the  "fellow,"  the 
equal,  the  compeer,  and  the  companion  of  the  "  Lord 
of  hosts."  Now,  as  Christ  appropriated  this  prophecy 
to  himself,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  his  claiming  to  be 
the  Man  who  was  equal  in  power  and  glory  with  the 
Father.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  John,  who  says  so 
much  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  is  silent  in  regard 
to  his  referring  this  prediction  of  Zechariah  to  him- 
self; while  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  are  less  explicit 
concerning  the  divinity  of  our  Saviour,  make  mention 
of  his  so  applying  it.  (See  Matt.  xxvi.  31;  Mark 
xiv.  27.)  So  that  the  Evangelists,  who  have  dwelt  less 
fully  than  John  upon  the  doctrine  so  precious  to  him, 
have  told,  nevertheless,  of  the  fulfilment  in  Christ  of 
that  which  was  foretold  of  a  Man,  who  was  co-eternal, 
co-existent,   and   co-supreme  with   the  Father.     The 


OF   CHRIST.  123 

text  in  Zechariah,  and  the  appropriation  of  it  by 
Christ,  should  for  ever  settle  the  question  as  to  his 
divine  and  human  natures. 

But  to  our  mind,  there  is  nothing  more  satisfactory 
on  this  point  than  a  comparison  of  the  second  Psalm 
with  the  eighty-fourth.  In  the  former  we  read:  "  Yet 
have  I  set  my  King  upon  my  holy  hill  of  Zion.  I  will 
declare  the  decree :  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  me,  Thou 
art  my  Son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.  Ask  of 
me,  and  I  shall  give  thee  the  heathen  for  thine  inhe- 
ritance, and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  thy 
possession.  .  .  .  Kiss  the  Son,  lest  he  be  angry,  and 
ye  perish  from  the  way,  when  his  wrath  is  kindled  but 
a  little.  Blessed  are  all  they  that  put  their  trust  in 
him."  The  King  here  spoken  of,  is  plainly  the  only 
begotten  Son,  whose  subordination  to  the  Father  is 
shown  by  his  being  required  to  ask,  that  he  might 
receive  dominion ;  and  whose  divinity  is  shown  by  the 
blessing  pronounced  upon  those  who  trust  in  him. 
Remember,  that  God  has  said,  "  Put  not  your  trust 
in  princes,  nor  in  the  son  of  man,  in  whom  there  is  no 
help."  The  King,  in  whom  we  are  directed  to  trust, 
cannot  then  be  a  mere  man,  else  there  would  be  a 
contradiction  in  God's  word.  It  would  be  foolish,  too, 
as  well  as  wicked,  to  put  confidence  in  the  creature ; 
for  experience,  as  well  as  Holy  Writ,  teach  us  that 
"vain  is  the  help  of  man."  Paul  shows  that  the  Son 
mentioned  above  was  Jesus  Christ ;  and  though  in  his 
human  nature  he  was  subordinate  to  the  Father,  yet 
to  make  him  a  mere  man,  would  be  to  make  the  Bible 


124  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

contravene  itself,  and  teach  an  absurdity.  But  the 
comparison  of  the  foregoing  verses  with  the  11th  and 
12th  verses  of  the  eighty-fourth  Psalm,  will  show  con- 
clusively that  the  Being,  in  whom  we  are  exhorted  to 
trust,  is  one  consubstantial  with  the  Lord  God.  "  The 
Lord  God  is  a  sun  and  shield :  the  Lord  will  give  grace 
and  glory :  no  good  thing  will  he  withhold  from  thern 
that  walk  uprightly.  0  Lord  of  hosts,  blessed  is  the 
man  that  trusteth  in  thee !"  Now,  as  we  are  forbid- 
den to  trust  in  the  mightiest  potentates  of  earth,  and 
as  the  same  blessing  is  pronounced  on  him  who  trusts 
in  Christ,  as  upon  him  who  trusts  in  the  Lord  of 
hosts,  it  is  plain  that  there  must  be  oneness  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  (Compare  also  the  second 
Psalm  with  Isa.  xxvi.  4 ;  Psalms  xxxvii.  3 ;  cxviii.  8 ; 
&c.     Compare  also  Micah  v.  1,  2,  with  Matt.  ii.  6.) 

We  deem  it  unnecessary  to  produce  more  proof 
that  John  has  been  consistent  with  the  prophets,  in 
teaching  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  truly  God  and 
truly  man.  They  speak  of  the  promised  Messiah  as 
possessing  the  name,  titles,  and  attributes  of  Jehovah, 
and  yet  as  wearing  a  nature  having  the  qualities  and 
properties  of  the  creature.  He  employs  the  same  lan- 
guage respecting  the  Messiah  after  he  had  come  and 
been  offered  up  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  Moreover,  the 
testimony  of  John  not  only  comports  with  that  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets,  but  also  with  nature  itself,  speaking 
through  the  creeds  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
God  has  so  constituted  the  heart  of  man,  that  it  longs 
for  the  union  of  the  divine  with  the  human  nature — the 


OF   CHRIST.  125 

divine  to  protect,  the  human  to  be  "touched  with  the 
feeling  of  our  infirmities."  We  have  all  felt  the  impo- 
tency  of  an  arm  of  flesh;  trials,  bereavements,  sick- 
ness, and  death  have  taught  us  to  "  cease  from  man, 
whose  breath  is  in  his  nostrils."  We  need  the  pre- 
serving, sustaining  care  of  Omnipotence.  When  de- 
solations come  like  a  whirlwind,  we  turn  away  from 
our  fellow-worms  of  the  dust,  and  cry  earnestly  unto 
the  Lord  God  Almighty:  "What  time  I  am  afraid, 
I  will  trust  in  thee."  This  is  the  universal  voice  of 
all  our  feeble,  helpless  race.  Who  has  not  cried, 
"Lead  me  to  the  rock  that  is  higher  than  I,"  when 
the  great  floods  were  about  to  overwhelm  him  ?  Sin 
has  not  so  darkened  our  understandings  that  we  do 
not  know  that  God  alone  can  be  an  efficient  protector. 
But  a  God  absolute  is  a  God  terrible.  We  shrink  in 
our  nothingness  from  the  contemplation  of  the  gran- 
deur and  immensity  of  the  Sovereign  of  the  boundless 
universe.  We  shrink  in  our  guilt  and  pollution  from 
addressing  a  pure  and  holy  God,  who  cannot  look 
upon  sin  with  the  least  allowance.  How  grateful  to 
us  poor  trembling  sinners  is  it,  to  hear  that  "  God  is  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself" — reconciling 
his  fallen  creatures  to  the  contemplation  of  his  power, 
dominion,  and  sovereignty,  as  well  as  of  his  holiness, 
justice,  goodness,  and  truth!  How  delightful  for  a 
frail  thing  of  earth,  who  needs  sympathy  in  trouble, 
succour  in  distress,  grace  in  temptation,  and  support  in 
death,  to  hear,  "  Forasmuch  then  as  the  children  are 
partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  likewise 
11* 


126  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

took  part  of  the  same :  that  through  death  he  might 
destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the 
devil,  and  deliver  them  who,  through  fear  of  death, 
were  all  their  life-time  subject  to  bondage.  For 
verily  he  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels; 
but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham.  Where- 
fore in  all  things  it  behoved  him  to  be  made  like 
unto  his  brethren,  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and 
faithful  high-priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to 
make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  For 
in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted,  he 
is  able  to  succour  them  that  are  tempted."  Heb.  ii. 
14-18.  Here  is  just  the  Deliverer  that  suffering 
humanity  needs — Almighty  to  save,  and  yet  of  a 
kindred  nature,  to  understand  and  pity  our  weaknesses 
and  imperfections.  And  we  find  accordingly,  that 
mankind,  with  few  exceptions,  have  claimed  just  such 
a  friend  and  protector. 

Dr.  Thomas  Smyth,  of  Charleston,  says,  "The  be- 
lief in  a  Trinity — a  triad  of  supreme  and  co-equal 
deities — has  been  held  in  Hindostan,  in  Chaldea,  in 
Persia,  in  Scythia,  comprehending  Thibet,  Tartary 
and  Siberia ;  in  China,  in  Egypt,  among  the  Greeks, 
among  the  Greek  philosophers  who  had  visited  Chal- 
dea, Persia,  India  and  Egypt,  and  who  taught  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  after  their  return ;  among  the 
Romans,  among  the  Germans,  and  among  the  ancient 
Mexicans." 

Dr.  Cudworth  says :  "  The  most  acute  and  ingenious 
of  all  the  Pagan   philosophers,   the   Platonists    and 


OF   CHRIST.  127 

Pythagoreans,  who  had  no  bias  at  all  upon  them,  nor 
any  Scripture,  (which  might  seem  to  impose  upon 
their  faculties,)  but  followed  the  free  sentiments  and 
dictates  of  their  own  minds,  did,  notwithstanding, 
not  only  entertain  this  Trinity  of  divine  hypostases, 
eternal  and  uncreated,  but  were  also  fond  of  the 
hypothesis,  and  made  it  a  fundamental  of  their  the- 
ology." 

Dr.  Minchola  has  shown,  that  the  same  doctrine 
existed  in  some  form  among  "the  Finns,  Laplanders, 
Aztecs,  and  South  Sea  Islanders."  The  great  mass 
of  the  heathen  world  has  then  had  some  vague  pre- 
sentiment of  a  three-fold  distinction  in  the  divine 
essence.  This  presentiment  has  assumed  a  somewhat 
definite  belief  in  the  Egyptian,  Hindoo,  and  Chinese 
mythologies.  The  Egyptian  theogony  embraced  three 
personifications  of  the  Supreme  Being — Chnouf,  Neith, 
and  Phtha.  The  Shu-King,  or  holy  book  of  the  Chi- 
nese, recognizes  a  sacred  and  mysterious  Three — Yu, 
Tshing-tang,  and  Va-vang.  The  second  of  these,  with 
a  lamb-skin  cast  around  him,  offered  himself  volunta- 
rily an  expiatory  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  his  people. 
(Mutter's  Universal  History.)  The  Vedas  and  Pura- 
nas,  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Hindoos,  teach  the  tri- 
personality  of  the  Godhead,  and  name  the  Triune 
Being — Brahma,  Vishna,  and  Shiva.  They  speak  too 
of  the  avatdrs,  or  incarnations  of  the  self-existent 
God.  Buddhism,  which  prevails  over  a  large  portion 
of  Asia,  is  the  worship  of  Buddha,  or  Deity  incarnate. 
The    Lamaism    of   Thibet  is    but    another    form    of 


128  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

Buddhism;  the  Delai  Lama,  or  Great  Priest,  being 
regarded  as  the  representative  on  earth  of  the  ever- 
living  Buddha. 

All  this  looks  like  the  trace  of  a  great  original 
truth — sadly  obscured,  it  is  true — but  not  altogether 
obliterated ;  or  it  shows  that  mankind  have  universally 
felt  the  want  of  a  Mediator  and  an  Advocate  between 
their  guilty  selves  and  a  holy  and  absolute  God.  And 
to  this  felt  want,  we  ascribe,  in  a  great  degree,  the 
prevalence  of  idolatry.  As  the  world  became  corrupt, 
and  lost  the  idea  of  a  divine  Deliverer,  to  appear  in 
human  form,  it  became  more  and  more  conscious  of 
utter  unworthiness  of  communion  with  the  awful  and 
dreaded  Great  First  Cause.  Hence  it  framed  for  itself 
a  system  of  subordinate  deities,  to  plead  and  make 
intercession  for  the  sinner. 

And  this  it  is  that  gives  Popery  such  a  hold  upon 
the  corrupt  human  heart — the  Romish  saint  has  taken 
the  place  of  the  Pagan  god.  The  former,  like  the 
latter,  is  an  intercessor,  an  offerer  of  the  prayers,  and 
alms,  and  good  deeds  of  his  devotee.  The  Papist 
prays  to  Mary,  or  Joseph,  or  Francis,  to  intercede  for 
him  with  the  offended  Majesty  of  Heaven,  just  as  the 
heathen  prays  to  his  subordinate  god  to  propitiate  the 
favour  of  the  Sovereign  Ruler  of  the  universe.  Ro- 
manism has  cunningly  taken  advantage  of  two  convic- 
tions, the  most  deeply  seated  in  the  human  breast — 
the  conviction  that  we  have  insulted  the  dreadful 
Jehovah,  and  the  conviction  that  we  need  a  Friend, 
who   has  his    favour    and   his    confidence.     But   the 


OF   CHRIST.  129 

Romanist  takes  as  that  friend,  not  Jesus  Christ,  our 
elder  brother,  but  a  priest  or  a  saint. 

And  here  it  may  be  well  to  answer  an  objection  of 
Unitarianism,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was 
not  authoritatively  promulgated  until  the  meeting  of 
the  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325.  It  is  sufficient  for 
our  present  purpose  to  answer,  that  even  the  grossest 
heretics  of  the  ante-Nicene  period  did  not  teach  the 
doctrine  of  an  absolute  monotheism.  Some  (as  the 
Ebionites)  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ.  Some  (as 
the  Gnostics)  denied  his  humanity.  Some  again  (as 
the  Patripassians)  merged  his  divinity  in  that  of  the 
Father.  Others  (as  the  Sabellians)  taught  that  there 
was  a  trinity  of  revelation,  but  not  of  essence.  All 
of  these  errorists,  however,  acknowledged  (with  rare 
exceptions)  a  Trinity  of  some  sort — a  Trinity  of  mani- 
festation, a  Trinity  of  existence,  or  a  Trinity  of  ope- 
ration. They  all  felt  that  guilty  man  could  not 
approach  his  righteous  Judge  without  an  advocate. 
And  though  they  were  not  prepared  for  the  Athana- 
sian  creed,  of  three  persons  and  one  essence,  still 
their  views  were  more  rational,  more  intelligible,  and 
more  scriptural  than  those  of  Socinus,  Priestley,  Bel- 
sham,  Schleiermacher,  and  others  of  the  modern  Uni- 
tarian school. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  prove  that  John's  teach- 
ing is  consistent  with  itself,  consistent  with  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  consistent  with  the  creeds  of 
nine-tenths  of  mankind,  and  consistent  with  the  wants, 
if  not  the  wishes,  of  the  whole  human  race.     It  is 


130  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

important,  too,  to  observe  that  John  does  not  lay 
down  dogmatically  his  great  doctrine,  except  in  his 
first  chapter.  He  gives  utterance  to  it  in  the  natural 
course  of  his  narrative,  and  does  not  pause  to  make 
any  comment  upon  it.  He  again  and  again  declares 
this  paramount  truth  of  the  gospel  in  the  most  simple, 
artless  manner.  It  comes  up  in  the  natural  course 
of  his  story.  He  adopts  no  expedient  to  call,  his 
reader's  attention  to  it.  The  regular  order  of  his 
testimony  is  nowhere  broken  to  make  way  for  it.  If 
John  shows  artifice  in  all  this,  it  is  the  very  perfec- 
tion of  artifice.  Never  was  counterfeit  so  thoroughly 
stamped  with  all  the  marks  of  the  real  and  genuine. 

36.  Now,  what  shall  be  said  of  testimony,  in  which 
no  discrepancy  and  no  incongruity  can  be  detected? 
What  shall  be  said  of  testimony,  which  is  consonant 
with  the  statements  of  a  "great  cloud  of  witnesses"? 
What  shall  be  said  of  testimony,  which  agrees  with 
the  opinions  on  the  same  subject,  of  the  vast  majority 
of  mankind  ?  Is  it  possible  to  question  the  verity  of 
such  evidence.  Is  it  possible  to  doubt  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  witness  ? 

The  52d  and  53d  verses,  already  quoted,  contain  a 
rebuke  of  the  Jews  for  the  ruffianly  manner  of  the 
arrest  of  Christ;  ("Be  ye  come  out  as  against  a  thief 
with  swords  and  staves?") a  reproach  for  their  coward- 
ice in  coming  secretly  at  night,  ("  When  I  was  daily 
with  you  in  the  temple,  ye  stretched  forth  no  hands 
against  me;")  and  an  intimation  that  they  could  do 
nothing  against  him  even  then,  but  for  the  permis- 


OF   CHRIST.  131 

sion  granted  them  in  connection  with  the  spirits  of 
darkness  to  exercise  power  for  a  season,  ("But  this 
is  your  hour  and  the  power  of  darkness.") 

The  last  clause  is  obscure,  and  we  would  not  have 
ventured  to  give  the  above  exposition,  but  for  the 
light  thrown  upon  it  by  the  first  two  Evangelists. 
Mark,  after  mentioning  the  rebuke  and  the  reproach 
in  nearly  the  same  words  as  Luke  employs,  adds, 
"But  the  Scripture  must  be  fulfilled."  The  account 
of  Matthew  is  almost  identical  with  that  of  Mark. 

We  have  in  Luke's  slight  departure  in  his  closing 
sentence  from  the  language  used  by  Matthew  and 
Mark,  no  mean  proof  of  the  credibility  of  the  wit- 
nesses. The  first  two  witnesses  explain  fully  a  phrase 
of  the  third  witness,  which  is  in  itself  of  doubtful  im- 
port; and  after  the  explanation  we  see  clearly  that 
all  three  agree  in  conveying  the  same  idea,  viz.,  that 
just  as  God  permitted  Satan  to  tempt  his  servant 
Job,  so  he  allowed  the  powers  of  darkness  to  pre- 
vail, in  their  allotted  hour,  over  his  own  well-beloved 
Son. 

But  we  will  make  a  still  more  important  use  of  the 
words  of  our  Saviour  as  recorded  by  Luke.  We  have 
seen  that  MattheAV  and  Mark  agree  substantially  with 
him,  as  to  the  precise  language  used  by  Christ.  John 
however,  omits  the  address  altogether,  although  it  is 
the  most  natural  conceivable  under  the  circumstances. 
It  is  an  indignant  protest  by  our  Redeemer  against 
the  advantage  taken  of  him  in  the  darkness  of  the 
night.     It  is  just  such  an  appeal  against  violence  and 


132  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

injustice  as  any  man  would  make,  who  was  similarly 
wronged.  The  naturalness  of  the  address  demon- 
strates that  it  was  spoken,  and  yet  John  leaves  it  out 
altogether.  Moreover,  the  reproach  of  the  Jews  for 
their  cowardice,  must  have  stung  them  keenly.  The 
point  of  honour  in  man  lies  in  his  courage.  He  would 
rather  be  called  villain  than  coward.  And  yet  John 
has  passed  over  the  stinging  reproof,  under  which  the 
Jews  must  have  writhed.  But  it  so  happens  that  he 
puts  the  same  words  of  reproach,  in  the  mouth  of  our 
Saviour  on  the  occasion  of  his  trial  before  Caiaphas, 
and  shows  the  anger  excited  by  them.  "Jesus  an- 
swered him,  (the  high-priest,)  I  spake  openly  to  the 
world;  I  ever  taught  in  the  synagogue  and  in  the 
temple,  whither  the  Jews  always  resort :  and  in  secret 
have  I  said  nothing.  Why  askest  thou  me  ?  ask  them 
which  heard  me,  what  I  have  said  unto  them :  behold, 
they  know  what  I  have  said.  And  when  he  had 
thus  spoken,  one  of  the  officers  which  stood  by,  struck 
Jesus  with  the  palm  of  his  hand,  saying,  Answerest 
thou  the  high-priest  so?"  John  xviii.  20,  21. 

We  find  the  same  thought  still  prominent  in  the 
mind  of  the  Saviour,  which  he  had  given  utterance  to 
in  the  garden.  He  is  still  thinking  of  the  publicity 
of  his  instructions  in  the  synagogue  and  the  temple, 
when  no  hands  were  laid  upon  him.  This  concurrent 
and  yet  undesigned  testimony  of  John,  in  regard  to 
the  language  of  Christ,  proves  that  it  was  also  spoken 
at  the  time  specified  by  Matthew,  and  Mark,  and 
Luke.    Furthermore,  John  gives  incidentally  the  most 


OF    CHRIST.  133 

satisfactory  proof  of  the  veracity  of  the  other  three 
witnesses.  He,  and  he  alone,  tells  of  the  violence 
offered  to  Christ.  Now  observe  that  there  was  nothing 
offensive  in  what  Jesus  said  to  the  high-priest,  nothing 
that  called  for  a  blow.  Observe,  too,  that  it  was  an 
officer  who  struck  him — an  officer  doubtless  of  the  ar- 
resting party,  who  had  been  smarting  under  the  im- 
putation of  cowardice,  and  who  now  sought  to  revenge 
the  insult  upon  again  being  reminded  of  his  pol- 
troonery.* And  notice  that  with  the  characteristic 
hypocrisy  of  Jewish  officials,  he  professed  to  buffet 
Christ  for  his  disrespect  to  the  high-priest,  when  he 
really  struck  the  blow  for  the  reflection  in  the  garden, 
now  renewed  by  the  allusion  to  openly  teaching  in  the 
synagogue  and  temple.  So  we  see  that  John,  who 
says  nothing  about  the  address  of  our  Lord  to  the 
band  who  seized  him,  tells  us  of  his  using  substan- 
tially the  same  words  before  Caiaphas.  The  other 
three  Evangelists  omit  the  speech  to  Caiaphas,  but 
record  that  in  Gethsemane.  And  so  they  all  mutu- 
ally supply  deficiencies,  while  agreeing  in  the  main. 
Moreover,  John  alone  speaks  of  the  outrage  perpe- 
trated by  the  officer  upon  the  person  of  Christ,  but 
the  other  three  writers  explain  the  motive  which 
prompted  to  the  brutal  act. 

37.  A  brief  recapitulation  will  show  that  we  have 
again  a  triune  argument  for  the  credibility  of  the  wit- 

*  John  employs  the  same  Greek  word  to  express  the  rank  of 
him  who  struck  the  blow,  as  he  had  used  to  denote  the  official 
character  of  those  who  commanded  the  arresting  party. 

12 


134  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

nesses :  First,  the  elucidation,  by  Matthew  and  Mark, 
of  an  uncertain  expression  in  Luke ;  second,  the  men- 
tion, by  John,  of  words  spoken  by  Christ,  and  alleged 
by  the  other  three  Evangelists  to  have  been  spoken 
on  another  occasion  also;  third,  the  explanation,  by 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  of  an  act  of  violence 
recorded  by  John  alone. 

The  man  who  can  believe  that  this  differing  yet 
agreeing  testimony,  this  independent  yet  concurrent 
evidence,  is  the  result  of  a  cunningly  contrived  fraud, 
is  prepared  to  believe  any  absurdity.  We  know  that 
intelligent  juries  are  always  convinced,  by  harmoniz- 
ing disagreements  among  witnesses,  of  the  truth  of 
their  statements  concerning  temporal  affairs.  Have 
we  one  set  of  laws  by  which  to  try  secular  witnesses, 
and  another  by  which  to  try  spiritual  witnesses  ?  Shall 
the  rules  of  common  sense,  which  govern  mankind  in 
judging  of  earthly  matters,  be  ignored  when  they 
come  to  examine  heavenly  things  ?  Is  it  right,  is  it 
rational,  to  reject  testimony  that  would  satisfy  judge 
and  jury,  in  an  action  at  law,  simply  because  we  have 
not  the  patience  to  investigate  it,  or  the  candour  to 
acknowledge  its  credibility  ? 

The  54th  verse  is  very  instructive:  "Then  took 
they  him,  and  led  him,  and  brought  him  into  the  high- 
priest's  house."  The  word  rendered  "took,"  signifies 
really  the  joint  laying  of  hands  upon  him.  The  word 
rendered  "brought,"  is  tautological,  being  but  a  com- 
pound of  that  rendered  "led."  The  whole  verse  con- 
veys the  idea  of  guarding  him  with  the  most  extraor- 


OF   CHRIST.  135 

dinary  care.  John  agrees  with  Luke,  for  he  mentions 
that  they  bound  Jesus,  a  circumstance  not  related  by 
the  other  Evangelists.  Now,  why  were  these  precau- 
tions taken?  We  find  no  explanation  in  the  records 
of  the  two  Evangelists,  who  alone  allude  to  them. 
On  the  contrary,  Luke  tells  us  of  Christ's  healing  the 
wounded  servant,  signifying  by  that  very  act  that  he 
did  not  mean  to  resist.  And  John  tells  of  his  express- 
ing a  willingness  to  submit  to  seizure,  if  his  disciples 
were  not  molested.  We  must  turn  then  to  Matthew 
and  Mark  for  a  solution  of  the  mystery,  and  we  do 
not  turn  in  vain.  For  Matthew  relates  the  warning 
that  Judas  gave  the  Jews  to  guard  their  prisoner 
well.  "Whomsoever  I  shall  kiss,  that  same  is  he: 
hold  him  fast."  Mark  says  that  Judas  cautioned 
them  to  "lead  him  away  safely."  Doubtless  the 
traitor  had  in  his  mind  the  escape  of  his  Master  at 
Nazareth,  when  a  murderous  crowd  sought  to  thrust 
him  down  a  precipice,  (Luke  iv.  29,  30 ;)  and  of  his 
escape  from  the  wretches  who  had  taken  up  stones 
to  stone  him.  John  viii.  29.  It  may  be,  too,  that 
Judas  mentioned  these  things  to  the  Jews,  and  thus 
put  them  on  their  guard  against  his  getting  away. 

38.  We  have  here  as  strong  proof  of  the  credibility 
of  the  testimony,  as  the  most  sceptical  could  demand. 
Two  of  the  witnesses  tell  of  the  vigilance  of  the  Jews 
in  securing  their  prisoner;  the  other  two,  who  had 
not  noticed  this  circumstance,  let  drop  a  remark 
which  explains  the  cause  of  this  vigilance.  If  there 
can  be  any  surer  mark  of  the  truthfulness  of  evidence 


136  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

than  is  exhibited  in  this  nice  concurrence,  we  are  at  a 
loss  to  know  what  it  can  be. 

We  have  had  occasion  before  to  notice  the  last  sen- 
tence of  the  54th  verse,  ("and  Peter  followed  afar 
off,")  contained  in  the  chapter  we  are  investigating. 
We  then  remarked,  that  though  Luke  and  John  had 
not  told  us  explicitly  of  the  flight  of  the  disciples, 
they  yet  agreed  with  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  had 
related  that  incident,  by  using  expressions  which 
showed  that  they  were  fully  apprized  of  it.  The 
reference  of  Luke  to  Peter's  following  afar  off,  and  of 
John,  to  the  following  of  Peter  and  that  "  other  dis- 
ciple," would  be  wholly  unmeaning,  if  all  had  followed 
and  none  had  fled.  The  point,  however,  which  we 
now  make,  is  that  the  first  three  Evangelists  mention 
that  Peter  followed  in  the  distance,  but  say  nothing 
about  that  "other  disciple."  The  omission  is  a  proof 
of  the  truth  of  the  gospel  narratives ;  for,  as  we  have 
already  stated,  the  relation  by  one  witness,  of  an 
occurrence  passed  over  by  the  other  witnesses,  would 
strengthen  our  impression  of  the  honesty  of  them  all, 
provided  that  the  narrator  had  superior  opportunities 
of  knowing  the  fact  which  he  alone  mentions.  This 
is  the  case  in  the  present  instance.  John  himself  was 
the  "other  disciple,"  and  he  therefore  has  spoken  of 
that  which  he  knew  perfectly,  and  which  was  a  matter 
of  personal  interest. 

39.  Men  who  get  up  a  fictitious  story,  do  not  act 
like  the  Evangelists.  Fraud  seeks  to  make  its  tale 
consistent.    It  guards  against  deficiencies  as  carefully 


OF   CHRIST.  137 

as  against  superfluities.  It  never  permits  one  nar- 
rator to  relate  an  incident  not  related  by  the  rest. 
We  may  detect  absurdities  in  the  fiction  itself;  but  it 
is  seldom  gotten  up  so  clumsily  that  we  can  discover 
incongruities  in  the  manner  of  relating  it.  The  bold- 
ness of  the  Evangelists,  and  their  calm  ignoring  of  all 
the  tricks  and  artifices  of  forgery,  constitute  an  unan- 
swerable argument  for  their  truthfulness. 

Before  passing  on  to  the  consideration  of  the  next 
subject,  we  will  notice  a  remarkable  expression  used 
by  our  Saviour  in  his  address  to  the  band  from  the 
chief  priests  and  elders.  Mark  says,  that  after  he 
had  rebuked  the  mob  for  their  ruffianly  and  cowardly 
mode  of  approaching  him,  he  added,  "But  the  Scrip- 
tures must  be  fulfilled."  The  Evangelist  then  subjoins 
these  significant  words:  "And  they  all  forsook  him, 
and  fled."  Matthew  says,  that  the  last  words  of 
Christ's  address  were,  "But  all  this  was  done,  that 
the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets  might  be  fulfilled." 
And  then  Matthew,  like  Mark,  adds,  "And  they  all 
forsook  him,  and  fled." 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact,  that  the  only  two  Evan- 
gelists who  distinctly  speak  of  the  flight  of  the  disci- 
ples, are  the  only  two  to  record  an  expression  which 
throws  much  light  on  that  transaction.  We  have 
little  doubt,  that  the  allusion  of  our  Saviour  to  "the 
Scriptures  of  the  prophets,"  had  a  great  deal  to  do 
with  the  flight  of  the  disciples.  Let  it  be  remembered, 
that  whenever  he  quoted  the  Scriptures,  to  show  that 
he  must  be  delivered  to  be  crucified,  his  disciples 
12* 


138  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

heard  him  with  doubt,  if  not  positive  disbelief.  Let  it 
be  remembered,  that  only  a  few  hours  before,  when 
he  applied  the  prophecy  concerning  the  smiting  of  the 
shepherd,  and  the  scattering  of  the  flock,  to  himself 
and  them,  they  earnestly  protested  against  its  appli- 
cation. But  now,  when  they  saw  their  Master  actu- 
ally in  the  power  of  his  enemies,  and  were  reminded 
by  him,  that  he  was  in  that  condition  in  order  that  the 
Scriptures  might  be  fulfilled,  they  naturally  recalled 
the  prediction  also  concerning  their  own  desertion  of 
him.  Seeing  the  prophecy  fulfilled  in  regard  to  their 
Lord,  they  then  knew  that  it  would  be  fulfilled  with 
respect  to  themselves ;  and  passing  from  the  extreme 
of  presumption  to  the  extreme  of  despair,  they  bring 
about,  by  their  flight,  the  fulfilment  of  an  event  so 
long  foretold. 

Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander  has  well  observed,  that  "  The 
prophecy  contributed  to  its  own  fulfilment,  by  enfee- 
bling or  destroying  that  factitious  courage  which 
existed  when  the  danger  was  distant  or  future." 
There  is  sound  philosophy  in  this  remark,  and  it 
agrees  with  two  well-known  principles:  First,  that 
the  fulfilment  of  a  prediction  inspires  confidence  in 
the  prophet.  Second,  that  men  oppose  but  a  feeble 
resistance  to  a  supposed  inevitable  calamity.  The 
first  principle  has  numerous  illustrations.  The  man 
who,  by  the  force  of  mere  shrewdness  in  worldly 
matters,  can  foretell  that  certain  results  will  follow 
certain  causes,  is  looked  up  to  in  intelligent  com- 
munities, and  is  regarded  with  superstitious  reverence 


OF   CHRIST.  139 

in  rude  states  of  society.  A  few  fortunate  predic- 
tions invest  all  his  opinions  with  the  sanctions  of  in- 
fallible truth. 

The  astronomer  Le  Verrier  made  most  probably 
but  a  lucky  guess,  as  to  the  direction  in  which  the 
new  planet  Neptune  was  to  be  sought ;  for  he  miscal- 
culated its  orbit,  its  distance,  its  eccentricity  and  its 
mass.  Yet  since  the  planet  was  found  by  "  the  happy 
accident"  of  his  prediction,  he  was  overwhelmed  with 
the  adulation  of  all  Europe.  "Language  could  hardly 
be  found  strong  enough  to  express  the  general  admira- 
tion. He  was  created  an  officer  of  the  Legion  of 
Honour  by  the  King  of  France,  and  a  special  chair 
of  Celestial  Mechanics  was  established  for  him  at  the 
Faculty  of  Sciences.  From  the  King  of  Denmark,  he 
received  the  title  of  Commander  of  the  Royal  Order 
of  Dannebroga;  and  the  Royal  Society  of  London 
conferred  on  him  the  Copley  medal.  The  Academy 
of  St.  Petersburg  resolved  to  offer  him  the  first 
vacancy  in  their  body;  and  the  Royal  Society  of 
Gottingen  elected  him  to  the  rank  of  Foreign  Asso- 
ciate." (Loomis's  History  of  Astronomy.)  And  so  it 
was,  that  a  single  fortunate  prediction  made  Le  Ver- 
rier the  most  celebrated  man  in  Europe.  To  this 
proneness  of  the  human  mind  to  repose  confidence, 
where  lucky  guesses  or  shrewd  calculations  have  re- 
vealed the  secret  and  the  unknown,  is  to  be  ascribed 
the  success  of  the  oracle  of  Jupiter  at  Dodona,  of 
Apollo  at  Delphi,  and  of  others  less  celebrated.  This 
also  has  led  to  the  practice  of  divination,  fortune- 


140  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

telling,  &c.  Now,  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  the 
confidence  of  the  incredulous  when  once  gained,  is 
just  in  proportion  to  their  former  disbelief.  General 
Taylor,  before  the  battle  of  the  8th  and  9th  of  May, 
1846,  was  distrustful  of  the  artillery  arm,  and  entirely 
sceptical  of  the  grand  achievements  so  confidently 
predicted  of  it.  But  after  he  had  witnessed  the  ter- 
rible havoc  made  at  Palo  Alto  by  round  shot,  grape, 
cannister,  and  schrapnel,  he  passed  to  the  other  ex- 
treme, and  put  no  limit  to  his  expectations  from  his 
light  and  heavy  ordnance.  The  case  of  the  disciples 
is  exactly  parallel.  They  had  been  altogether  in- 
credulous in  regard  to  the  predictions  concerning  the 
seizure  of  their  Master,  and  their  own  desertion  of 
him.  But  when  they  saw  one  part  of  the  prophecy 
fulfilled,  they  lost  all  their  doubts,,  and  implicitly  be- 
lieved that  the  other  part  would  be  fulfilled  also. 

The  second  principle  has  also  numerous  illustra- 
tions. Men  have  no  heart,  and  consequently  no  force 
to  oppose  a  fate,  which  they  regard  as  inevitable.  It 
has  ever  been  a  cardinal  feature  in  the  strategy  of 
great  military  leaders,  like  Napoleon,  to  take  the  ini- 
tiative in  warfare,  strike  the  first  blow  and  gain  the 
first  battle.  The  prestige  of  arms  once  established, 
the  defeat  of  the  enemy  in  every  subsequent  engage- 
ment, becomes  almost  a  matter  of  course.  The  vic- 
tories on  the  Rio  Grande  ensured  the  easy  conquest 
of  Mexico.  It  is  seldom,  indeed,  that  a  twice-beaten 
army  ever  shows  again  any  vigour  on  the  field  of  bat- 
tle.    But  the  principle  that  we  are  discussing  is  by 


OF   CHRIST.  141 

no  means  confined  to  martial  affairs.  When  a  man 
has  once  failed  in  a  particular  business,  it  is  regarded 
as  a  wonderful  proof  of  his  energy  and  determination, 
should  he  have  the  courage  to  engage  in  it  again. 

Now  let  us  apply  the  two  principles  under  con- 
sideration to  the  case  of  the  disciples  in  Gethsemane. 
The  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  respecting  their  Lord 
destroyed  at  once  their  presumption  and  self-confi- 
dence, and  made  them  believe  that  their  desertion  of 
him  was  inevitable,  and  they,  therefore,  resigned 
themselves  to  their  fate. 

40.  The  explanation  given  by  Matthew  and  Mark 
of  the  conduct  of  the  apostles,  is  so  natural  and  so 
accordant  with  experience,  that  it  affords  a  strong  pre- 
sumption of  the  truth  of  the  witnesses.  When,  more- 
over, we  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  the 
explanation  is  given  without  comment,  without  any 
apparent  design  to  make  it  an  explanation ;  and  when 
we  reflect,  too,  that  the  incident  mentioned  was  so 
eminently  discreditable  to  Matthew  and  Peter,  who 
had  it  recorded,  we  have  again  a  three-fold  argument 
for  the  credibility  of  the  gospel  narratives. 

Mark  alone  mentions  an  incident  which  occurred 
while  they  were  taking  Jesus  from  the  garden  to  the 
house  of  the  high-priest.  "And  there  followed  him  a 
certain  young  man,  having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about 
his  naked  body,  and  the  young  men  laid  hold  on 
him.  And  he  left  the  linen  cloth,  and  fled  from  them 
naked." 

It  is  commonly  supposed,  that  some  one  living  near 


142  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

the  garden,  was  aroused  from  his  slumbers  by  the  noise 
of  the  multitude,  and  came  out  hastily  to  see  what  was 
the  matter.  Since  Mark  speaks  of  the  youth  follow- 
ing him,  (Christ,)  and  not  the  band,  we  think  it  pro- 
bable that  the  aroused  sleeper  felt  a  special  interest 
in  the  Saviour.  We  do  not  know  who  he  was,  nor  is 
it  important  that  we  should.  Some  suppose  that  Mark 
himself  was  the  young  man,  and  that  he  has  accord- 
ingly related  a  matter  of  personal  interest.  If  so,  the 
silence  of  the  other  Evangelists  is  perfectly  natural. 
Be  that  as  it  may,  we  have  more  to  do  with  the  inci- 
dent itself  than  with  the  subject  of  it.  There  can  be 
but  two  suppositions  made  in  regard  to  the  treatment 
of  this  young  man.  It  was  either  an  act  of  wanton 
and  gratuitous  mischief,  or  it  was  an  attempt  to  secure 
a  person  who  had  manifested  an  interest  in  Christ, 
and  who  therefore  might  possibly  be  one  of  the  escaped 
disciples.  In  other  words,  it  was  either  the  sportive- 
ness  of  the  wicked,  or  the  struggle  of  the  malignant 
for  another  victim. 

Take  the  first  view,  and  we  have  thousands  of 
instances  of  similar  devilish  playfulness.  The  sport 
of  the  Philistines  around  poor  sightless  Sampson,  is  a 
case  in  point.  The  pleasantries  of  Mary  de  Medicis 
concerning  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's,  are 
well  known.  And  how  innumerable  were  the  jests, 
the  puns,  the  witticisms  perpetrated  by  the  mob  of 
Paris,  upon  the  victims  of  the  guillotine,  during  the 
Reign  of  Terror.  One  of  the  remorseless  execution- 
ers of  that  strange  compound  of  bigotry  and  villany, 


OF   CHRIST.  143 

Louis  XI.  of  France,  was  celebrated  for  his  jocoseness 
with  the  prisoners  under  the  gallows.  Some  of  the 
most  unfeeling  wretches  in  the  world  have  mingled 
merriment  with  their  cruelties.  The  poet  has  beauti- 
fully expressed  this  idea : 

"Ralph  felt  the  cheering  power  of  spring, 
It  made  him  whistle,  it  made  him  sing; 
His  heart  was  mirthful  to  excess, 
But  the  Rover's  mirth  was  wickedness." 

If  the  first  view  is  correct,  and  the  apprehension  of 
the  young  man  was  merely  through  the  exuberance 
of  hellish  joy  at  the  capture  of  Christ,  we  have  exhi- 
bited here  a  natural  stroke  from  a  master  hand.  The 
Evangelist  has  given  us  a  true  picture  of  exulting 
wickedness,  and  history  teaches  that  corrupt  humanity 
has,  alas !  but  too  often  presented  the  living  reality. 
But  Mark  has  not  only  been  consistent  with  experi- 
ence, he  has  also  been  consistent  with  himself.  What 
he  tells  us  subsequently,  of  the  mocking  of  Christ,  and 
of  the  sport  indulged  in  around  a  helpless  prisoner,  is 
entirely  in  keeping  with  the  fun  over  a  naked  and 
unarmed  man.  And  yet  the  harmony  in  his  narrative 
is  so  delicate,  and  evidently  so  undesigned,  that  even 
biblical  critics  have  failed  to  observe  it.  Mark,  then, 
by  the  consistency  of  his  story,  has  given  a  strong 
proof  of  his  integrity ;  but  this  proof  is  augmented  a 
thousand-fold  by  the  manifest  absence  of  all  design 
and  preconceived  plan.  Had  he  related  the  incident 
of  the  seizure  of  the  young  man,  with  the  intention  of 
showing  that  the  same  spirit  of  mischievous  deviltry 


144  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

which  prompted  that  act,  also  prompted  the  wicked 
jocularity  over  the  sacred  person  of  our  Redeemer, 
he  would  have  made  some  remark  to  call  our  attention 
to  it ;  but  he  has  made  no  comment  whatever.  Like 
an  honest  and  impartial  witness,  he  has  related  facts, 
and  left  motives  out  of  consideration,  because  he  had 
nothing  to  do  with  them. 

The  second  view,  however,  may  be  correct.  The 
Jews  may  have  thought  that  the  young  man  was  a 
disciple,  or  at  least  a  friend  of  Jesus,  and  may  have 
wished  to  apprehend  him,  either  to  appear  as  a  witness 
against  his  Master,  or  to  share  his  fate.  John  tells 
us  of  the  anxiety  of  the  high-priest  to  find  out  from 
Christ  who  were  his  disciples :  "  The  high-priest  then 
asked  Jesus  of  his  disciples  and  of  his  doctrine."  It 
is  evident  from  this,  that  the  Jews  either  thirsted  for 
the  blood  of  the  disciples  as  well  as  that  of  their  Lord, 
or  that  they  wished  to  get  from  them  testimony  which 
would  serve  to  convict  him.  The  third  emphatic 
denial  of  Peter  somewhat  strengthens  this  view.  We 
are  told,  a  little  further  on  in  the  narrative,  that  when 
Peter  was  charged  for  the  third  time  with  being  a 
disciple,  "He  began  to  curse  and  to  swear,  saying, 
I  know  not  this  man  of  whom  ye  speak." 

We  think  it  exceedingly  probable  that  Peter,  while 
standing  warming  himself  by  the  fire,  heard  many 
savage  threats  against  the  disciples  as  well  as  their 
Master,  and  that  it  was  this  that  made  him  so  fearful 
of  being  thought  even  an  acquaintance  of  Jesus.  To 
this  it  may  be  objected,  that  no  insults  were  offered  to 


OF   CHRIST.  145 

John.  But  John's  intimacy  with  the  high-priest  was 
his  best  protection ;  and  we  find  too,  that  such  was 
the  estimation  in  which  he  was  held  by  the  household 
of  Caiaphas,  that  he  had  influence  enough  with  the 
porteress  to  secure  the  admission  of  Peter.  John 
xviii.  16.  And  this  influence  is  directly  ascribed  to 
the  fact  that  he  "was  known  unto  the  high-priest." 
So  that  the  courteous  treatment  of  John  shows  nothing 
as  to  what  would  have  been  the  treatment  of  the  other 
disciples  had  they  been  apprehended.  The  relations 
between  John  and  the  high-priest  may  have  been  such 
that  the  latter  was  reluctant  to  have  him  even  appear 
as  a  witness  in  the  trial  of  Christ.  But  whether  this 
be  so  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  for  some  purpose  the 
Jews  wished  to  seize  the  disciples  in  the  garden. 
Why  then  did  they  not  accomplish  their  object  ?  The 
passover  took  place  at  full  moon,  when  the  nights 
were  bright  and  every  object  distinctly  visible.  The 
arresting  party  were  large  enough  to  capture  all  the 
disciples.  They  were  led  by  a  competent  guide, 
familiar  with  the  place  and  all  the  avenues  of  escape. 
How  happened  it  then  that  they  failed  to  carry  out 
their  designs  ?  How  was  it  that  they  permitted  so 
many  of  their  intended  victims  to  escape  ?  Matthew 
and  Mark,  who  alone  speak  of  the  flight  of  the  disci- 
ples, afford  us  no  clue  to  the  mystery.  But  John  gives 
us  certain  hints,  which  enable  us  to  ascertain  how  it 
was  that  the  disciples  could  evade  the  vigilance  of  their 
enemies.  First  of  all,  we  learn  from  him  that  it  was 
a  dark  night,  and  therefore  favourable  to  their  escape. 
13 


146  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

He  speaks  of  the  "lanterns  and  torches"  carried  by 
the  band  which  came  from  the  chief  priests  and  elders. 
These  lights  would  have  been  entirely  unnecessary, 
had  not  the  moon  been  obscured  by  clouds.  It  would 
seem  that  all  nature  sympathized  with  the  glorious 
sufferer.  The  moon  withdrew  her  light  from  the 
indignities  offered  his  sacred  person  in  Gethsemane. 
The  sun  veiled  his  face  from  witnessing  the  cruelties 
of  Calvary.  The  earth  shook,  the  rocks  rent,  and 
the  graves  were  opened',  but  man  was  then  as  man  is 
now,  more  insensible  than  sun  and  moon,  earth  and 
rocks,  yea,  than  the  very  dead  in  the  grave. 

John,  moreover,  is  the  only  Evangelist  who  speaks 
of  Christ's  interposition  in  behalf  of  his  disciples,  "If, 
therefore,  ye  seek  me,  let  these  go  their  way,"  and  of 
the  arresting  party's  overthrow.  Putting  the  three 
statements  of  John  together,  we  are  no  longer  at  a 
loss  to  account  for  the  escape  of  the  disciples.  The 
darkness  of  the  night  favoured  them,  the  interposition 
of  their  Master  favoured  them,  and  the  fright  and 
confusion  of  the  Jews  after  they  were  hurled  to  the 
ground,  favoured  them. 

41.  So,  then,  we  see  that  whichever  view  is  taken 
of  the  seizure  of  the  "young  man  having  a  linen  cloth 
cast  about  his  naked  body,"  there  will  be  a  strong 
proof  of  the  credibility  of  Mark  as  a  witness.  For 
our  own  part,  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  whole 
thing  was  a  riotous  frolic.  Mark  does  not  say  that 
the  band  seized  the  young  man,  but  that  "  The  young 
men   (neaniskoi,)   laid   hold    on   him."     We   do    not 


OF   CHRIST.  147 

know  whether  he  means  to  designate  by  this  term, 
youthful  persons  or  servants.  Olshausen  supposes 
that  the  latter  are  meant.  The  epithet  boy  was  then, 
as  now,  applied  to  a  slave  of  any  age.  Whether 
youths  or  servants,  they  were  just  the  sort  of  persons 
to  engage  in  a  piece  of  cruel  fun,  which  was  of  too 
undignified  a  character  for  the  Roman  soldiers  and 
civil  posse.  If  our  opinion  be  correct,  there  is  strong, 
internal  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Mark's  Gospel.  He 
has  related  an  incident,  which  accords  exactly  with 
all  that  experience  and  history  teach  of  the  sportive 
cruelties  of  the  wicked ;  and  which  accords  well  with 
the  malignant  buffoonery  practised  afterwards  in  the 
house  of  Caiaphas. 

If,  however,  we  take  the  second  view,  and  suppose 
that  the  young  men  were  desirous  to  catch  a  disciple, 
the  question  arises,  Why  did  they  let  the  disciples 
escape?  And  there  we  find  that  John,  who  had  said 
nothing  about  the  flight  of  the  disciples,  affords  the 
only  explanation  that  we  have  in  regard  to  their  slip- 
ping out  of  the  hands  stretched  forth  to  grasp  them. 
The  second  view  will  furnish  as  strong  an  argument 
as  the  first,  for  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses.  A 
natural  and  undesigned  explanation  by  one  witness, 
of  an  incident  related  by  another,  is  an  incontroverti- 
ble proof  of  the  truthfulness  of  both. 

The  54th  verse  states  that  Jesus  was  brought  to 
the  high-priest's  house,  and  Matthew  and  Mark  em- 
ploy similar  language.  And  but  for  the  parallel  pas- 
sage in  John,  we  would  naturally  infer  that  Christ 


148  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

was  taken  from  the  garden  directly  to  the  palace  of 
Caiaphas.  John  however  tells  us,  that  he  was  taken 
first  to  Annas,  the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas,  a  man 
of  great  influence  with  the  Jews.  He  had  himself 
been  high-priest,  but  had  been  deposed  by  Valerius 
Gratus,  the  Roman  Procurator  under  the  Emperor 
Tiberius.  His  son  Eleazer  was  made  high-priest  some 
time  after  his  deposition,  and  now  his  son-in-law,  Caia- 
phas, was  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  administration,  as 
head  of  the  Jewish  Church.  The  house  of  Annas  may 
have  been  nearer  to  the  garden  than  was  that  of  Caia- 
phas, and  the  arresting  party  would  naturally  stop  to 
show  their  prisoner  to  a  man  who  had  been  high-priest 
himself,  and  who  was  the  father  of  one  high-priest,  and 
the  father-in-law  of  another.  That  the  party  did  stop, 
John  leaves  us  no  room  to  doubt.  But  it  is,  and  has 
long  been,  a  disputed  question,  whether  any  of  the 
events  recorded  by  the  Evangelists,  took  place  in  the 
house  of  Annas. 

That  we  may  the  better  understand  the  point  at 
issue,  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  verses  13  to  24, 
of  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  John: — "And  led  him 
(Jesus)  away  to  Annas  first ;  for  he  was  father-in-law 
to  Caiaphas,  which  was  the  high-priest  that  same  year. 
Now  Caiaphas  was  he  which  gave  counsel  to  the  Jews, 
that  it  was  expedient  that  one  man  should  die  for  the 
people.  And  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus,  and  so  did 
another  disciple:  that  disciple  was  known  unto  the 
high-priest,  and  went  in  with  Jesus  into  the  palace  of 
the  high-priest.     But  Peter  stood  at  the  door  without. 


OF   CHRIST.  149 

Then  went  out  that  other  disciple  which  was  known 
unto  the  high-priest,  and  spake  unto  her  that  kept  the 
door,  and  brought  in  Peter.  Then  saith  the  damsel 
that  kept  the  door  unto  Peter,  Art  thou  not  also  one 
of  this  man's  disciples?  He  saith,  I  am  not.  And 
the  servants  and  the  officers  stood  there,  who  had 
made  a  fire  of  coals,  for  it  was  cold ;  and  they  warmed 
themselves :  and  Peter  stood  with  them,  and  warmed 
himself.  The  high-priest  then  asked  Jesus  of  his  dis- 
ciples, and  of  his  doctrine.  Jesus  answered  him,  I 
spake  openly  to  the  world ;  I  ever  taught  in  the  syna- 
gogue, and  in  the  temple,  whither  the  Jews  always 
resort;  and  in  secret  have  I  said  nothing.  Why 
askest  thou  me?  ask  them  which  heard  me,  what  I 
have  said  unto  them :  behold,  they  know  what  I  said. 
And  when  he  had  thus  spoken,  one  of  the  officers 
which  stood  by,  struck  Jesus  with  the  palm  of  his 
hand,  saying,  Answerest  thou  the  high-priest  so? 
Jesus  answered  him,  If  I  have  spoken  evil,  bear  wit- 
ness of  the  evil:  but  if  well,  why  smitest  thou  me? 
Now  Annas  had  sent  him  bound  unto  Caiaphas  the 
high-priest." 

Many  learned  commentators  suppose  that  Annas 
was  the  high-priest  that  propounded  the  foregoing 
questions ;  that  it  was  in  his  house  Jesus  was  struck 
by  the  brutal  officer,  and  that  it  was  in  his  house 
Peter  denied  his  Master.  Olshausen  expresses  him- 
self on  the  subject  in  these  words:  "In  ancient  times 
it  was  proposed  to  solve  the  difficulty  (in  regard  to  the 
place  of  the  denial  of  Peter  and  the  assault  upon 
13* 


150  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

Christ)  by  very  violent  means :  verse  24  was  placed 
immediately  after  verse  13.  One  manuscript  has  this 
reading  still;  and  in  the  Philoxenian  translation, 
verse  24  is  marked  on  the  margin  as  interpolated. 
But  the  difficulty  is  more  easily  removed  by  taking 
the  'had  sent,'  (apesteile,)  in  verse  24,  as  the  pluper- 
fect tense.  Thus  everything  related  concerning  the 
trial  of  Christ,  and  the  denial  of  Peter,  would  be 
referred  to  the  palace  of  Caiaphas. 

"Lucke  and  Mayer  declare  themselves  entirely  in 
favour  of  this  hypothesis;  and  the  enallage  thus 
assumed,  certainly  involves  no  essential  difficulty. 
Compare  Winer' 's  Grammar,  page  251,  where  many 
passages  quoted  from  profane  writers,  prove  that  the 
aorist  may  be  employed  for  the  pluperfect.  But  the 
absence  of  any  particle  of  transition,  as  well  as  the 
position  of  verse  24,  seems  wholly  adverse  to  the  hypo- 
thesis. Had  the  words  stood  after  verse  18,  such  an 
assumption  would  have  been  more  tenable ;  as  it  is,  it 
would  involve  at  least  extreme  negligence  in  John  as 
a  writer.  If  we  confine  ourselves  to  John,  it  seems 
clearly  his  intention  to  inform  us  that  a  trial  took 
place  in  the  palace  of  Annas,  and  that  Peter  was 
present  in  that  palace.  Without  the  synoptical  nar- 
ratives, no  one  could  have  understood  him  differently. 
For  these  reasons,  I  declare  myself,  with  Euthymius, 
Grotius,  and  others,  favourable  to  the  supposition  that 
John  intended  to  correct  and  complete  the  synoptical 
accounts,  and  therefore  he  supplies  the  notice  of  the 
examination  in  the  palace  of  Annas.     That  there  can 


OF   CHRIST.  151 

be  an  error  in  the  account  of  John,  we  cannot  imagine, 
for  he  was  an  eye-witness,  and  has  narrated  the  cir- 
cumstances with  care  and  minuteness;  so  minute  is 
he  in  this  part  of  his  history,  that  he  has  given  even 
the  kinship  of  the  high-priest's  servant,  (xviii.  26;) 
what  he  has  added  concerning  the  examination  by  the 
high-priest  (vers.  19,  23,)  has  no  resemblance  to  that 
held  before  Caiaphas,  and  therefore  cannot  possibly 
be  identified  with  the  latter." 

We  have  given  the  arguments  of  Olshausen  in  full, 
because  we  are  constrained  to  differ  with  him,  Nean- 
der,  Dr.  David  Brown,  and  all  who  entertain  the 
opinion  that  there  was  an  examination  of  Christ  before 
Annas.  It  will  be  seen  that  this  eminent  critic  gives 
three  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  occurrences  re- 
corded in  the  foregoing  extract  from  John,  took  place 
in  the  palace  of  Annas.  We  will  notice  these  in  their 
order.  The  first  is,  that  there  is  no  particle  of  trans- 
ition from  the  23d  verse  to  the  24th  verse.  To  this 
we  answer,  that  many  editions  of  the  Greek  text  do 
have  a  particle  of  transition.  The  text  used  by  the 
translators  of  King  James's  Bible  contained  it,  and 
"now"  has  been  given  us  as  its  equivalent  in  Eng- 
lish, unoiv  Annas  had  sent  him  bound  unto  Caia- 
phas," &c. 

It  may  be  well  to  explain  to  the  reader  acquainted 
only  with  the  English  translation,  that  the  word  ren- 
dered "now"  is  not  an  adverb  of  time,  but  what  is 
called  a  Greek  particle — a  kind  of  expression  which 
depends  for  its  meaning  very  much  upon  the  context. 


152  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

Winer  has  shown  that  the  particle  we  are  considering, 
is  used  when  a  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from  some 
antecedent  statement,  and  that  it  has  consequently  a 
wide  range  of  signification.  He  has  shown  that  this 
particle  (pun)  in  addition  to  its  usual  meaning,  "there- 
fore," might  be  rendered  "so,"  in  Acts  xxvi.  22; 
"now,"  in  Romans  xi.  19 ;  "then,"  in  Matt,  xxvii.  22, 
&c.  And  we  find  accordingly,  that  the  translators 
of  King  James's  Bible  have  rendered  it,  "now,"  in 
the  18th  verse  of  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  John, 
"now  Caiaphas  was  he,  which  had  given  counsel,  &c." 
The  obvious  intention  of  the  particle  in  that  verse,  is 
to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  to  be  tried 
by  a  man  who  had  already  prejudged  him,  and  that 
therefore,  the  issue  of  the  trial  could  not  be  doubtful. 
Beyond  all  question,  the  particle  has  there  the  force 
of  "be  it  remembered,"  "take  heed  to  the  fact," 
"mark,"  &c. ; — Be  it  remembered  that  this  was  the 
same  Caiaphas,  which  had  given  counsel,  &c.  We 
think  that  own  has  the  same  meaning  in  the  24th 
verse.  The  Evangelist,  after  telling  how  Jesus  had 
been  struck  when  on  trial,  and  therefore  under  the 
protection  of  the  court,  adds  as  an  aggravation  of  the 
offence,  that  the  prisoner  was  bound.  It  would  be 
mean  to  strike  a  prisoner,  but  doubly  mean  to  strike 
a  bound  prisoner.  And  so  the  Evangelist  felt,  and  he 
therefore  said,  "Be  it  remembered  that  Annas  had 
sent  him  bound  to  Caiaphas."  Nor  is  this  exposition 
affected  by  leaving  out  the  particle,  and  it  is  left  out 
in   Bagster's  edition  of  the  Greek  text,  likewise  in 


OF   CHRIST.  153 

Knapp's,  and  probably  also  out  of  most  of  the  best 
editions.  The  only  difference  will  be,  that  in  this 
case,  John  gives  utterance  to  his  own  indignation  at 
the  thought  that  a  bound  prisoner  had  been  struck, 
without  seeking  by  word  or  comment  to  make  us 
share  in  his  anger.  And  this  absence  of  comment  is 
so  characteristic  of  the  Evangelists,  that  it  almost 
amounts  to  a  demonstration  of  the  interpolation  of 
the  particle.* 

Olshausen's  second  reason  for  thinking  that  part  of 
the  recorded  proceedings  against  Christ,  took  place 
in  the  house  of  Annas,  is  that  verse  24,  according  to 
any  other  view,  would  be  out  of  place.  This  is  asser- 
tion and  not  argument,  and  can  be  appropriately 
answered,  by  saying  that  verse  24  is  just  where  it 
ought  to  be,  after  the  23d  verse,  and  before  the  25th 
verse. 

The  third  reason  is,  that  what  is  related  above  by 
John  could  not  have  taken  place  at  the  palace  of 
Caiaphas ;  because  the  trial  before  the  high-priest,  as 
recorded  by  the  first  three  Evangelists,  bears  no  re- 
semblance to  this  recorded  by  the  last  Evangelist. 
To  this,  it  may  be  replied,  that  John  does  not  diverge 
more  widely  from  the  first  three  writers  in  regard  to 
the  trial,  than  he  does  in  regard  to  the  scene  in  the 
garden.  And  we  might  use  the  same  form  of  argu- 
ment to  prove  that  there  were  two   Gethsemanes,  as 

*  We  have  seen  a  very  ancient  version,  -which  retains  oun.  The 
English  equivalent  is  left  out  in  Tyndale's  Bible,  but  retained  in 
the  Bishop's  Bible,  and  Genevan,  as  well  as  King  James's  Bible. 


154  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

well  as  two  trials  before  Jewish  officials.  We  think, 
moreover,  that  Olshausen  is  mistaken  in  asserting 
that  there  is  no  resemblance  in  the  trial,  as  described 
by  John,  from  the  13th  to  the  25th  verse,  and  that 
referred  by  the  other  Evangelists  to  the  palace  of 
Caiaphas;  for,  to  our  mind,  there  is  a  most  happy 
correspondence.  John  tells  us,  that  when  the  high- 
priest  asked  Jesus  "  of  his  doctrine,"  he  was  answered, 
"Ask  them  which  heard  me."  Matthew  and  Mark 
show  us  how  Caiaphas  and  his  coadjutors  availed  them- 
selves of  the  hint,  and  how  they  did  "ask  of  them 
which  had  heard  him."  "Now  the  chief  priests  and 
elders,  and  all  the  council,  sought  false  witness  against 
Jesus,  to  put  him  to  death." 

In  support  of  the  opinion,  that  there  was  but  one 
formal  trial  of  Christ  before  the  Jewish  dignitaries, 
the  following  reasons  may  be  given. 

First.  John  introduces  both  Annas  and  Caiaphas 
in  the  18th  verse,  and  he  is  careful  to  tell  us  that  the 
latter  was  the  high-priest.  The  natural  and  fair  infer- 
ence then  is,  that  when  John  speaks  of  the  high-priest 
in  the  15th,  16th,  19th,  22d,  and  24th  verses,  he 
means  Caiaphas,  and  not  Annas.  And  it  is  not  at 
all  likely  that  John  would  make  any  mistake  in  the 
employment  of  the  title,  high-priest.  He  was  a  Jew, 
and  could  not  have  been  careless  in  an  allusion  to  the 
head  of  the  Jewish  Church.  For  the  same  reason, 
Matthew  and  Mark  could  not  have  erred  in  the  use 
of  the  same  term.  John,  however,  would  have  been 
far  less  apt  to  be  wrong,  because  his  intimacy  with  the 


OF   CHRIST.  155 

high-priest,  and  even  the  very  domestics  of  the  high- 
priest,  forbids  any  such  supposition. 

Second.  Winer  shows  that  the  word  rendered  "  had 
sent,"  (apesteilen,)  though  an  aorist,  has  been  properly 
translated  as  a  pluperfect ;  and  he  quotes  Kuinol  and 
Lucke  as  his  endorsers.  This  word  (apesteilen)  then 
refers  to  some  antecedent  period ;  and  the  sense  of 
the  24th  verse  is,  therefore,  "Annas,  some  time  pre- 
vious, had  sent  Christ  bound  to  Caiaphas;"  and  not, 
"Annas,  the  preliminary  examination  being  over,  now 
sends  Christ  bound  to  Caiaphas."  This  shows  clearly 
that  the  Evangelist  means  to  tell  us,  that  Christ  had 
been  sent  to  Caiaphas  before  the  denial  by  Peter  and 
the  cowardly  assault  by  the  Jewish  officer. 

Third.  The  hypothesis  that  the  24th  verse  is  simply 
the  soliloquizing  comment  of  John  upon  the  atrocious 
conduct  of  the  Jewish  officer,  relieves  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  all  difficulty ;  and  it  is  the  only  supposition 
that  is  not  attended  with  any  embarrassment. 

Fourth.  This  hypothesis  gives  us  a  characteristic 
feature  of  John's  style  of  writing.  It  is  entirely  like 
him  to  think  aloud,  as  it  were,  of  the  aggravated 
wickedness  of  the  blow,  and  yet  not  to  make  any 
eifort  to  excite  our  indignation  on  account  of  it. 

For  these  reasons,  we  think  that  there  was  no  trial 
in  the  house  of  Annas,  and  that  the  Jews  merely 
stopped  there  a  few  minutes  to  exhibit  their  prisoner, 
and  then  passed  on.  This  is  the  opinion  of  most  com- 
mentators— Whitby,  Doddridge,  Scott,  Clarke,  &c. 
Whitby  says,  "  Of  his  being  sent  to  Annas,  the  other 


15G  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

Evangelists  say  nothing,  because  nothing  was  done  to 
him  there ;  but  all  was  done  in  the  palace  of  Caia- 
phas."  Doddridge  transfers  verse  24,  and  places  it 
immediately  after  verse  13.  He  also  renders  apes- 
teilen  according  to  its  strict  aorist  signification,  and 
not  as  a  pluperfect.  The  connected  verses  then  read, 
"And  led  him  away  to  Annas  first,  for  he  was  father- 
in-law  to  Caiaphas,  which  was  the  high-priest  that 
same  year.  And  Annas  sent  him  bound  to  Caiaphas." 
This  makes  good  sense.  But  in  addition  to  the  fact, 
that  the  most  eminent  Greek  scholars  are  against 
Doddridge,  in  his  rendering  of  apesteilen,  and  that 
the  best  copies  of  the  original  text  are  against  the 
transposition  of  verse  24,  the  internal  evidence  is 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  correctness  of  the  English 
translation  of  the  verse  in  dispute.  This  violent 
wresting  of  it  out  of  its  place,  deprives  it  of  its  force, 
significance,  and  life-blood.  It  is  clear  to  our  mind, 
that  the  verse  is  in  its  right  place,  and  that  it  was 
intended  solely  to  show  the  enormity  of  striking  a 
helpless,  bound  prisoner. 

Adam  Clarke  thinks  that  there  were  no  proceedings 
against  Christ  in  the  palace  of  Caiaphas,  but  he  has 
a  difficulty  in  coming  to  this  conclusion.  The  particle 
in  verse  24  troubles  him.  He  says,  "John  xviii. 
15-23,  seems  to  intimate  that  these  transactions  took 
place  at  the  house  of  Annas,  but  this  difficulty  arises 
from  the  insertion  of  the  particle  '  therefore'  (ouri)  in 
verse  24,  which  should  have  been  left  out,  on  the 
authority  of  ADES  Mt.  B  II;  besides  that  of  some 


OF   CHRIST.  157 

versions,  and  of  the  primitive  Fathers.  Griesbach 
has  left  it  out  of  the  text." 

It  is  obvious  that  the  trouble,  with  this  eminent 
scholar,  has  arisen  from  his  misunderstanding  of  the 
design  of  John  in  writing  the  24th  verse.  The  pre- 
sence or  the  absence  of  the  particle  has  no  material 
bearing  upon  what  we  believe  to  be  the  true  exposi- 
tion. For,  retain  the  particle,  John  then  calls  upon 
us  to  notice  the  baseness  of  striking  a  prisoner  in 
bonds ;  reject  the  particle,  John  then  mentions,  with- 
out comment,  that  the  smitten  prisoner  was  bound. 

42.  We  see,  therefore,  that  there  is  the  most  per- 
fect agreement  among  all  the  Evangelists  in  regard 
to  the  place  of  Peter's  denial.  They  all  locate  it  in 
the  palace  of  Caiaphas.  Had  they  fabricated  a  fiction 
together,  and  related  it  in  precisely  the  same  words, 
there  would  not  have  been  more  exact  correspondence 
in  their  statements  than  we  actually  find  to  exist. 
But  it  is  evident  that  John  at  least  had  no  understand- 
ing with  the  others,  as  to  what  he  should  say.  For, 
with  the  simple-hearted  earnestness  of  a  man  intent 
only  upon  communicating  what  he  saw  and  heard,  he 
has  told  his  tale  without  any  regard  to  its  confor- 
mity with  the  accounts  of  the  other  Evangelists.  In 
fact,  so  utterly  indifferent  has  he  been  in  reference  to 
this  matter,  that  he  has  used  an  expression  which  has 
sorely  puzzled  the  most  eminent  biblical  students. 
This  independence  of  manner  in  narrating  facts, 
united  with  the  most  complete  harmony  as  to  the 
facts  themselves,  is  irrefragable  proof  of  the  credibility 
14 


158  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

of  the  Gospels.  It  would  have  been  no  difficult  task 
for  John,  writing  after  the  other  Evangelists,  to  have 
adapted  his  narrative  to  theirs.  But  it  is  a  notable 
circumstance  that  most  of  the  alleged  discrepancies 
are  between  his  statements  and  those  of  the  first  three 
writers.  We  trust  to  be  able  to  show  that  these  dis- 
crepancies are  harmonies  in  disguise.  But  even  if 
this  be  not  shown,  there  will  still  remain  the  incontes- 
table truth  that  every  page  of  the  record  of  the  last 
of  the  Evangelists,  bears  marks  of  his  own  idiosyn- 
crasy, and  of  his  entire  freedom  from  being  tram- 
meled by  the  accounts  of  the  preceding  writers.  Does 
this  look  like  fraud?  Does  it  look  like  a  "cunningly 
devised  fable"  ?  Does  it  look  like  the  contrivance  of 
artful  and  designing  men? 

If  three  witnesses  had  given  their  testimony  with 
respect  to  a  certain  matter,  and  a  fourth,  who  knew 
their  evidence,  should  be  regardless  of  conforming  his 
statements  to  theirs,  no  intelligent  jury  could  be  made 
to  believe  that  there  had  been  any  preconcert  among 
the  four.  Whatever  might  be  thought  of  the  indi- 
vidual truthfulness  of  the  men,  they  could  not  at  least 
be  accused  of  concocting  together  a  falsehood.  The 
absence  of  everything  that  looked  like  pre-arrange- 
ment  would  afford  a  strong  presumption  of  their  in- 
tegrity. And  this  presumption  would  be  changed 
into  proof,  when  their  several  testimonies,  though 
variant  in  word  and  manner,  were  found,  after  rigid 
investigation,  to  be  beautifully  accordant  in  even  the 
smallest  particulars. 


OF    CHRIST.  159 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    DENIAL   OF    PETER. 

To  convey  a  clear  impression  of  this  sad  affair  and 
its  attendant  circumstances,  we  will  describe  the  better 
sort  of  Jewish  houses.  The  Israelites  most  likely 
derived  their  ideas  of  architecture  from  the  Egyptians. 
Those  nations  which  had  intercourse  with  Egypt  when 
preeminent  in  letters,  arts,  and  sciences,  would  natu- 
rally imitate  her  architecture.  Traces  of  her  style  of 
building  are  still  to  be  found  in  Southern  Europe. 
The  Moors  introduced  Egyptian  architecture  into 
Spain,  and  the  Spaniards  and  Portuguese  brought  it 
to  this  continent.  We  find,  accordingly,  that  the 
houses  in  Mexico,  Central  America,  and  South  Ame- 
rica, are  built  at  this  day  just  as  they  were  in  Judea 
in  the  time  of  Joshua  and  the  Judges. 

We  will  try  to  describe  the  Jewish  buildings  from 
our  personal  knowledge  of  the  Spanish.  They  were 
in  the  form  of  a  hollow  square,  built  around  on  four 
sides,  thus  leaving  a  court  or  open  space  in  the  cen- 
tre. This  enclosed  area  is  called  by  Luke  "the 
hall,"  and  we  will  see  that  Matthew  and  Mark  also 
designate  it  by  the  same  name.  The  entrance  to  the 
court  was  by  a  large  covered  archway  deeper  than 
the  front  of  the  building ;  that  is,  it  extended  back 
into  the  court,  and  also  projected  forward  into  the 
street.  It  was  closed  by  large  folding  gates  through 
which  horses  and  chariots  could  pass.  The  large 
gates  were  usually  kept  closed,  and  ingress  and  egress 


160  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

were  given  by  a  wicket-gate  made  in  one  of  the  larger 
gates,  and  of  size  great  enough  to  permit  persons  on 
foot  to  pass  through.  Matthew  calls  this  archway 
or  vestibule  "the  pylon."  Matt.  xxvi.  71.  Mark  calls 
it  "the  fore-court,"  jwoaulion.  Mark  xiv.  68.  In  our 
English  translation,  both  words  are  rendered  "porch." 
In  large  edifices,  such  as  the  palace  of  Caiaphas, 
there  was  always  considerable  room  in  this  porch; 
and  as  it  was  the  coolest  part  of  the  house,  it  was 
ever  a  favourite  resort  for  the  servants  and  retainers, 
and  their  visitors.  It  was  also  the  place  of  traffic  for 
family  supplies,  luxuries,  &c.  Permanent  seats  made 
in  the  walls  extended  the  entire  length  of  the  arch- 
way on  both  sides,  and  were  often  used  as  couches  for 
repose  in  warm  weather.  The  gateways  leading  into 
walled  towns  were,  in  all  respects,  similar  to  those 
leading  into  private  residences,  and  were  visited  by 
the  elders  and  influential  men,  for  the  purpose  of 
discussing  the  affairs  of  the  commonwealth  and  the 
municipality.  Deut.  xvii.  5,  8 ;  xxv.  6,  7 :  Ruth 
iv.  1,  &c. 

The  rooms  on  the  lower  floor  of  the  houses  were  a 
little  elevated  above  the  central  court,  and  were  en- 
tered from  it.  The  office,  or  place  of  business  of  the 
master  of  the  family,  the  kitchen  and  the  apartments 
of  the  servants  were  on  this  floor.  Some  eight  or  ten 
feet  in  front  of  these  rooms  was  a  colonnade  extend- 
ing entirely  around  the  four  sides,  in  order  to  support 
a  piazza  or  stoop,  which  gave  access  to  the  rooms  of 
the  second  story.     The  piazza  itself  was  reached  by 


OF    CHRIST.  161 

a  flight  of  stairs  from  the  court  beneath.  The  space 
between  the  colonnade  and  rooms  of  the  first  story  is 
used  at  the  present  day  for  feeding  horses,  mules,  and 
camels  in  the  caravansaries  or  inns  of  Asia.  The 
Jews  most  likely  appropriated  this  space  for  the  same 
purpose,  and  here  most  probably  Solomon  made  the 
four  thousand  stalls  for  his  horses.  2  Chron.  ix.  25. 

The  Jewish  houses  were  seldom  more  than  two 
stories  high.  The  proprietor  and  his  family  occupied 
the  second  story.  One  of  the  rooms  on  this  floor, 
that  immediately  over  the  archway,  was  the  largest 
and  best  furnished  in  the  house,  and  was  known  as  the 
"guest-chamber."  (See  Mark  xiv.  14.)  The  roofs 
of  the  houses  were  flat,  and  were  favourite  places  for 
walking,  and  for  meditation  in  the  cool  of  the  evening. 
David  often  resorted  thither,  and  Peter  had  gone  "up 
upon  the  house-top  to  pray,"  when  he  fell  into  the 
trance,  which  was  to  teach  him  that  the  wall  of  parti- 
tion between  Jew  and  Gentile  was  broken  down.  (See 
Acts  x.  9.) 

To  prevent  accidents  to  persons  walking  on  the 
roof,  the  law  of  Moses  required  that  a  battlement 
should  extend  entirely  around  the  edges.  (See  Deut. 
xxii.  8.)  In  midsummer,  an  awning  was  frequently 
suspended  from  the  inner  battlements,  so  as  to  cover 
the  court  beneath.  When  Mark  tells  us  that  the 
friends  of  the  man  "sick  of  the  palsy,"  "uncovered 
the  roof,"  that  they  might  let  him  down  into  the  pre- 
sence of  Jesus,  he  means  nothing  more  than  that 
they  removed  the  awning,  so  that  the  paralytic  could 
14* 


162  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

be  lowered  into  the  area  below.  (See  Mark  chap,  ii.) 
Now,  we  will  be  able  to  understand  all  the  transac- 
tions in  the  palace  of  Caiaphas,  if  we  assume  that  his 
office  was  on  the  lower  floor  opposite  the  gate,  so  that 
it  would  be  the  first  room  seen  by  a  person  passing 
through  the  archway.  Let  us  assume,  too,  that  a 
bema  or  platform  was  just  in  front  of  this  office,  and 
between  it  and  colonnade.  Such  an  assumption  is  in 
entire  accordance  with  the  known  customs  of  that 
period.  Suppose,  also,  Caiaphas  seated  upon  this  ros- 
trum, with  Jesus  and  his  accusers  beside  him ;  keep 
distinctly. in  mind  the  shape  of  the  palace;  remember 
that  the  open  court  is  called  the  "hall,"  and  that  the 
gateway  is  called  the  "  porch."  With  these  things 
in  view,  a  clear  idea  will  be  gotten  of  the  proceeding 
against  our  blessed  Lord  and  Redeemer. 

The  Evangelists,  in  their  account  of  the  denial  of 
Peter,  afford  a  perfect  example  of  the  mutual  supple- 
ment by  the  witnesses  of  deficiencies  in  the  narra- 
tions of  one  another,  and  of  their  mutual  finishing  out 
of  incomplete  statements.  Matthew  says,  "But  Peter 
followed  him  afar  off,  unto  the  high-priest's  palace 
(literally  hall  or  court  of  the  high-priest)  and  went  in 
and  sat  with  the  servants  to  see  the  end."  The  ques- 
tion naturally  arises,  "Where  did  he  sit?  Was  it  in 
the  court  ?  or  in  the  porch  provided  with  permanent 
seats  ?  or  in  some  of  the  servants'  apartments  ?  Mark 
says,  "And  Peter  followed  him  afar  off,  even  into  the 
palace  of  the  high-priest :  (literally  court  of  the  high- 
priest)  and  he  sat  with  the  servants,  and  warmed  him- 


OF   CHRIST.  163 

self  by  the  fire."  From  this  it  appears  that  Peter 
sat  down  by  a  fire ;  and  it  would  be  fair  to  infer,  that 
the  fire  was  in  the  kitchen,  or  a  servant's  room.  But 
Luke  says,  that  "When  they  had  built  a  fire  in  the 
midst  of  the  hall,  and  were  set  down  together,  Peter 
sat  down  with  them."  The  fire  was,  then,  in  the  court 
or  open  space,  and  not  in  the  kitchen  or  servants' 
room.  We  learn,  too,  another  fact  not  before  com- 
municated, and  that  is,  that  the  arresting  party  made 
the  fire. 

Why  did  they  make  it  ?  Was  it  that  they  might 
have  a  better  and  steadier  light  than  that  aiforded  by 
their  "  lanterns  and  torches"?  Were  they  cold,  too, 
as  well  as  Peter?  Or  was  his  chilliness  only  the 
result  of  fright  and  excitement  upon  a  singularly 
nervous  temperament?  John  says,  that  the  servants 
and  officers  stood  there,  who  had  made  a  fire  of  coals ; 
for  it  was  cold,  and  they  warmed  themselves;  and 
Peter  stood  with  them,  and  warmed  himself."  We 
now  learn,  for  the  first  time,  that  the  weather  was 
cold,  and  that  others  besides  Peter  felt  it.  Observe, 
too,  that  John,  who  usually  pays  so  little  attention  to 
details,  speaks  here  with  the  precision  of  an  eye- 
witness. He  tells  us  the  very  material  of  which  the 
fire  wo,s  made. 

On  summing  up  our  evidence,  we  see  that  Matthew 
tells  of  Peter  sitting  down  with  servants ;  Mark,  of 
his  sitting  by  a  fire ;  Luke  tells  who  built  this  fire, 
and  where  it  was  built ;  John,  why  it  was  made,  and 
of  what  it  was  made.     The  statement,  too,  of  John 


164  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

about  the  coldness  of  the  night,  agrees  exactly  with 
all  that  travellers  say  of  the  climate  of  Judea.  The 
nights  there  are  cool,  even  when  the  days  are  warm. 
There  is  still  another  point  that  claims  our  notice. 
Though  Matthew  and  Mark  do  not  directly  tell  us 
that  Peter  seated  himself  by  a  fire  in  the  court,  yet 
they  evidently  had  this  fact  in  their  minds;  for, 
instead  of  speaking,  as  Luke  does,  of  coming  to  the 
high-priest's  house,  (oikon,)  they  speak  of  coming  to 
this  hall.  Moreover,  the  first  two  Evangelists,  a  little 
farther  on  in  their  narratives,  confirm  what  Luke  had 
explicitly  stated  in  reference  to  the  place  where  Peter 
was  seated.  The  English  reader  would  scarcely  sus- 
pect, that  when  Matthew  says,  "Peter  sat  without  in 
the  palace,"  the  literal  rendering  is,  "Peter  sat  with- 
out in  the  court."  So,  too,  when  Mark  says,  "And 
as  Peter  was  beneath  in  the  palace,"  the  literal  trans- 
lation is,  "And  as  Peter  was  beneath  in  the  court." 
The  Greek  word  [aide)  translated  "hall,"  in  Luke,  is 
the  same  as  that  translated  "palace,"  in  Matthew  and 
Mark. 

43.  If  we  combine  the  three  points  in  one — first, 
the  beautiful  adjustment  of  part  to  part,  in  the  seve- 
ral independent  statements ;  second,  the  confirmation 
of  John's  declaration  about  the  cold,  by  all  who  visit 
Judea;  third,  the  incidental  agreement  of  Matthew 
and  Mark  with  Luke,  as  to  Peter  sitting  in  the  court, 
we  will  have  a  triune  argument,  which  cannot  be  over- 
thrown. It  has  its  foundation  on  the  eternal  rock  of 
the  truth  of  God's  word,  and  the  petty  storms  raised 


OF   CHRIST.  165 

by  the  Prince  of  the  power  of  the  air  will  beat  upon 
it  in  vain. 

The  next  verse  (the  56th)  is  in  these  words:  "But 
a  certain  maid  beheld  him,  (Peter,)  as  he  sat  by  the 
fire,  and  earnestly  looked  upon  him,  and  said,  This 
man  also  was  with  him." 

Who  was  this  maid  ?  Did  she  belong  to  the  house- 
hold of  Caiaphas,  or  was  she  one  of  the  rabble  col- 
lected to  see  the  trial  of  Jesus  ?  Was  she  one  of  those 
seated  around  the  fire,  or  did  she  come  there  after 
Peter  ?  Why  did  she  look  earnestly  upon  him  ?  Why 
did  she  suspect  him  ?  Who  is  the  other  person  referred 
to  in  her  accusation,  "This  man  also  was  with  him"? 
Finally,  who  is  the  person  Peter  is  charged  with  fol- 
lowing? Matthew  answers  two  of  these  questions. 
He  says,  "Peter  sat  without  in  the  palace;  and  a 
damsel  came  unto  him,  saying,  Thou  also  wast  with 
Jesus  of  Galilee."  The  damsel,  then,  was  not  seated 
by  the  fire,  but  came  there ;  and  we  learn  now,  also, 
that  Peter  was  accused  of  being  with  Jesus  of  Galilee. 
Mark  answers  another  question.  He  says,  "And  as 
Peter  was  beneath  in  the  palace,  there  cometh  one 
of  the  maids  of  the  high-priest ;  and  when  she  saw 
Peter  warming  himself,  she  looked  upon  him,  and 
said,  And  thou  also  wast  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth." 
We  now  know  that  the  damsel  was  one  of  the  maid- 
servants of  Caiaphas.  Still  we  do  not  know  from 
what  part  of  the  building  she  came  ;  nor  how  she  came 
to  suspect  Peter  of  being  a  disciple  of  Jesus ;  nor  yet 
who  is  the  other  person  alluded  to  in  her  declaration, 


166  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

"  Thou  also  wast  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth."  John, 
however,  supplies  all  that  is  lacking  in  the  other  nar- 
ratives. He  tells  us  that  "  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus, 
and  so  did  another  disciple :  that  disciple  was  known 
unto  the  high-priest,  and  went  in  with  Jesus  into  the 
palace  {mile)  of  the  high-priest.  But  Peter  stood  at 
the  door  without.  Then  went  out  that  other  disciple, 
which  was  known  unto  the  high-priest,  and  spake  unto 
her  that  kept  the  door,  and  brought  in  Peter.  Then 
saith  the  damsel  that  kept  the  door  unto  Peter,  Art 
not  thou  also  one  of  this  man's  disciples  ?  He  saith, 
I  am  not." 

The  whole  thing  is  now  perfectly  plain  to  us.  Peter 
and  John  both  followed  Jesus,  but  John  entered  boldly 
into  the  palace  with  his  Master.  Peter  followed  afar 
off,  and  when  he  reached  the  archway,  his  courage 
failed  him,  and  he  was  afraid  to  go  in.  He,  however, 
hung  about  the  door,  too  cowardly  to  enter,  and  too 
much  attached  to  his  Lord  to  go  away.  This  extra- 
ordinary conduct  excited  the  suspicion  of  the  portress ; 
and  when  John,  a  known  disciple  of  Jesus,  came  out, 
and  brought  him  in,  she  was  led  to  suspect  that  Peter 
was  also  a  disciple.  Peter's  hesitation  about  entering, 
and,  it  may  be,  some  trepidation  of  manner  after  he 
had  gotten  in,  induced  her  to  follow  him  to  the  fire  in 
the  central  court,  and  there  charge  him  with  being  a 
disciple,  as  well  as  his  friend  John. 

A  casual  inspection  of  John,  would  dispose  one  to 
think  that  the  portress  addressed  Peter  in  the  arch- 
way;   but   on   a   more    thorough    examination,   it  is 


OF    CHRIST.  1G7 

evident  that  the  Evangelist  did  not  seek  to  produce 
that  impression.  For  immediately  after  recording  the 
conversation  of  the  damsel  with  Peter,  he  adds,  "And 
the  servants  and  officers  stood  there,  who  had  made  a 
fire  of  coals ;  for  it  was  cold,  and  they  warmed  them- 
selves :  and  Peter  stood  with  them,  and  warmed  him- 
self." This  verse  is  not  connected  with  what  succeeds 
it;  and  the  sole  object  of  it  is  plainly  to  tell  us  where 
Peter  was  at  the  time  of  his  being  challenged  by  the 
damsel.  There  is,  then,  perfect  harmony  among  the 
four  Evangelists,  in  every  particular. 

But  not  only  do  they  agree,  and  mutually  supple- 
ment one  another;  they  moreover  mutually  remove 
the  obscurities  that  pertained  to  the  several  narra- 
tives. Thus  the  first  three  put  the  word  "also"  in 
the  mouth  of  the  damsel;  and  John  explains  it  by 
showing  that  it  referred  to  himself.  Thus  Matthew 
and  Mark  speak  of  the  maid  coming  to  the  fire ;  and 
John  explains  the  expression,  by  showing  that  she 
came  from  the  gate.  Thus  Luke  tells  us  of  the  damsel 
lookingly  earnestly  upon  Peter;  and  John  explains 
the  reason  of  her  earnest  scrutiny,  by  showing  that 
her  suspicions  had  been  excited  at  the  gate,  and  that 
she  had  therefore  followed  him  to  the  light,  in  order 
to  examine  him  more  carefully.* 

*  The  word  rendered  fire,  in  the  56th  verse  of  Luke,  is  different 
from  that  in  the  55th,  and  literally  means,  not  fire,  but  light.  The 
verse,  then,  would  read,  "But  a  certain  maid  beheld  him,  as  he 
sat  by  the  light,"  &c.  The  change  of  word  is  very  significant — it 
clearly  proves  that  the  damsel  came  to  the  light,  for  a  better  view 
of  Peter. 


1G8  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

Observe,  moreover,  that  John  is  accurate,  even  in 
his  allusion  to  a  local  custom.  We  know  from  profane 
history,  that  the  gate-keepers  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  were  men ;  but  the  Jews  employed  women  for 
this  service.  (See  Acts  xii.  13.)  Hence  John's  decla- 
ration, that  the  maid  who  accosted  Peter  was  a  por- 
tress, accords  with  the  known  domestic  policy  of  the 
Jews. 

Observe,  too,  that  what  Matthew  and  Mark  say  of 
the  position  of  Peter,  agrees  exactly  with  the  more 
explicit  statements  of  Luke  and  John,  and  corresponds 
to  the  known  structure  of  Jewish  houses.  Thus  when 
Matthew  says,  "  Peter  sat  without  in  the  hall,"  (aule,) 
he  evidently  means  that  he  was  without  the  colonnade, 
where  was  the  bema,  upon  which  stood  Christ  and  his 
accusers.  And  when  Mark  says,  "  Peter  sat  beneath 
in  the  hall,"  he  plainly  means  that  he  was  beneath 
this  bema. 

44.  On  reviewing  our  evidence,  we  find — first,  exact 
harmony  among  the  Evangelists ;  second,  mutual  ex- 
planations of  doubtful  expressions ;  third,  a  reference 
to  a  known  peculiarity  in  the  household  arrangements 
of  the  Israelites ;  fourth,  several  allusions  to  the  inter- 
nal structure  of  the  Jewish  houses,  in  strict  conformity 
with  the  architecture  of  that  people.  We  think  that 
this  four-fold  cord  cannot  be  easily  broken.  It  was 
wrought  by  the  four  "witnesses  chosen  of  God,"  and 
not  by  the  feeble  hand  which  traces  these  lines. 

An  objection  may  be  raised,  that  much  of  the  sup- 
plementing noticed  above  has  been  done  by  John,  the 


OF   CHRIST.  169 

last  of  the  Evangelists.  The  answer  to  this  weak 
objection  is  easy.  It  is  the  most  difficult  of  all  tasks 
to  finish  a  work  in  the  spirit  and  manner  of  the  origi- 
nal designer.  Military  writers  tell  us  that  there  is 
nothing  more  dangerous  than  to  change  commanders, 
during  the  active  prosecution  of  hostilities.  None 
but  he  who  has  planned  and  begun  a  campaign,  can 
successfully  carry  it  out.  None  but  he  who  has  pro- 
jected the  order  of  battle  is  fit,  to  direct  the  subse- 
quent movements  on  the  field.  This  principle  was 
well  understood  by  the  humblest  private  in  the  army 
of  Napoleon.  Hence  the  confidence  inspired  by  the 
promise,  "Soldiers!  I  myself  will  direct  all  your 
batallions."  The  confidence  was  not  inspired  merely 
by  the  fact  that  their  beloved  Emperor  would  attend 
to  all  the  details  of  the  battle,  and  control  them  by 
his  wonderful  genius ;  but  by  the  fact  that  his  per- 
sonal supervision  would  prevent  confusion  and  any 
change  in  the  original  plan  of  operations.  At  the 
battle  of  Saltzbach,  the  great  Austrian  leader,  Mon- 
tecuculi,  stood  gazing  intently  upon  the  terrible  con- 
flict, when  his  quick  eye  suddenly  detected  a  move- 
ment of  the  French  troops  inconsistent  with  their  pre- 
vious arrangement,  and  inconsistent  with  their  pre- 
vious order  of  attack.  So  satisfied  was  he  by  this 
change  in  their  operations,  that  a  different  mind  was 
now  directing  the  columns  of  the  enemy,  that  he 
exclaimed  aloud,  "Turenne  is  dead,  or  mortally 
wounded."  And  so  it  proved  to  be.  The  French 
Marshal  had  been  killed  by  a  cannon-ball  before  the 
15 


170  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

evolution  took  place,  which  attracted  Montecuculi's 
notice.  But  not  only  is  it  hazardous  to  change  com- 
manders during  the  conduct  of  a  campaign,  it  is  also 
exceedingly  hazardous  for  the  same  commander  to 
change  his  own  preconcerted  plans.  The  great  mili- 
tary captain  forms  a  distinct  conception  of  the  scene  of 
operations,  the  numerical  strength  and  capabilities  of 
his  enemy,  the  number  and  quality  of  his  own  troops, 
&c.  From  all  these  data,  he  devises  his  system  of 
strategy,  before  he  breaks  up  his  encampment  and 
puts  his  troops  in  motion.  Circumstances  may  im- 
peratively demand  a  modification  of  his  well-digested 
scheme,  but  even  the  slightest  alteration  will  be  at- 
tended with  immense  peril.  And  there  is  scarcely 
anything  that  will  justify  a  change  in  the  presence  of 
of  an  active  and  intelligent  foe.  "I  have  them !"  was 
the  exultant  cry  of  Napoleon  at  Austerlitz,  when  he 
saw  the  Russians  attempting  to  change  their  order  of 
battle.  A  similar  mistake  to  that  of  the  allies  in  the 
campaign  of  1805,  was  made  by  the  Americans  at 
Brandywine,  and  resulted  most  disastrously  to  our 
arms.  At  the  battle  of  New  Orleans,  Packenham 
becoming  fretted  and  annoyed  at  the  inefficiency  of 
Colonel  Mullens,  changed  his  mode  of  attack  just  as 
his  troops  were  going  into  action.  The  issue  is  well 
known.  "Wellington's  invincibles"  were  driven  from 
the  field  with  fearful  loss,  by  the  untrained  militia  of 
the  West. 

These  illustrations  serve  to  show  that  whenever  the 
unity  of  plan  is  broken  up,  a  grave  error  is  commit- 


OF   CHRIST.  171 

ted.  Now  to  apply  this  truth  to  the  ease  in  point. 
John  could  not  have  told  a  consistent  story  without 
having  a  preconceived  plan.  But  upon  the  hypothe- 
sis of  a  forged  narrative,  his  plan  would  have  been 
constantly  broken  in  upon  by  his  effort  to  adapt  his 
story  to  the  statements  of  the  other  three  witnesses. 
And  since  his  narrative,  while  forming  a  harmonious 
sequel  to  theirs,  has  still  preserved  unity  and  con- 
gruity  in  all  its  parts,  the  inference  is  inevitable  that 
all  four  witnesses  were  under  the  direction  of  the 
same  controlling  mind,  even  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  of 
God. 

We  have  drawn  our  illustrations  from  a  single  de- 
partment of  human  effort,  and  that  the  most  remote 
from  literary  enterprise.  It  is  easy  to  draw  our 
parallels  nearer,  and  to  show  that  whatever  the  work 
may  be,  the  man  who  first  projected  and  began  it  can 
alone  be  trusted  with  finishing  it  in  harmony  with  the 
original  conception.  Sculptors,  painters,  poets,  phi- 
losophers, historians,  &c,  have  often  been  called  to 
render  an  account  of  the  deeds  done  in  the  body, 
before  the  great  works  of  art,  science  and  literature, 
which  they  had  begun,  had  been  fully  completed. 
And  in  most  cases,  no  one  has  had  the  presumption 
or  the  hardihood  to  attempt  the  completion  of  their 
labours. 

St.  Peter's  at  Rome  was  designed  by  the  celebrated 
Bramante ;  but  he  only  lived  to  carry  it  on  as  far  as 
"  the  springing  of  the  four  great  arches  of  the  central 
intersection."     The  work  was  then  entrusted  to  seve- 


172  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

ral  architects  in  succession,  who  all  failed  most  sig- 
nally, since  they  tried  to  ingraft  their  own  plans 
upon  the  original  design.  At  length  Pope  Paul  III. 
appointed  Michael  Angelo  architect  of  the  building, 
though  the  great  artist  was  then  in  his  seventy-second 
year.  "  He  immediately  laid  aside  all  the  drawings 
and  models  of  his  immediate  predecessors,  and  taking 
the  simple  subject  of  the  original  idea,  he  carried  it 
out  with  remarkable  purity,  divesting  it  of  all  the 
intricacies  and  puerilities  of  the  previous  successors 
of  Bramante,  and  by  its  unaffected  dignity  and  unity 
of  conception,  he  rendered  the  interior  of  the  cupola 
superior  to  any  work  of  modern  times.  He  was  en- 
gaged upon  it  seventeen  years,  and  at  the  age  of 
eighty-seven,  he  had  a  model  prepared  of  the  dome, 
which  he  carried  up  to  a  considerable  height ;  in  fact, 
to  such  a  point  as  rendered  it  impossible  to  deviate 
from  his  plan,  and  it  was  completed  in  conformity 
with  his  plan  by  Giacomo  della  Porta  and  Domenico 
Fontana."  The  success  of  Angelo  was  then  due  to 
his  adhering  to  the  original  design,  and  yet,  great  as 
were  his  powers,  we  are  told  that  he  hesitated  about 
undertaking  to  finish  that  which  another  had  begun. 
In  fact,  on  another  occasion,  he  positively  declined  a 
similar  task.  An  ancient  work  of  art,  the  celebrated 
group  of  Laocoon  and  his  children,  was  found  in  a 
vineyard,  A.  D.,  1506,  on  the  site  of  the  baths  of 
Titus.  From  the  writings  of  Pliny,  it  was  known 
that  there  was  such  a  group,  and  that  found,  corres- 
ponded exactly  with  his  description,  except  that  the 


OF   CHRIST.  173 

arm  of  the  principal  figure  was  broken  off.  Pope 
Julius  II.  commissioned  Michael  Angelo  to  restore 
the  mutilated  limb,  but  he  refused  to  attempt  it. 
Though  the  greatest  of  modern  sculptors,  he  felt  his 
inability  to  make  an  arm  in  perfect  proportion  with 
the  rest  of  the  figure,  designed  and  executed  by 
another.  We  think,  too,  that  no  one  ever  attempted 
to  complete  Angelo's  own  unfinished  paintings  for  the 
Sistine  Chapel.  It  is  said  that  Da  Vinci  intended 
to  give  some  additional  touches  to  the  head  of  the 
Saviour  in  his  picture  of  the  Last  Supper ;  but  after 
his  death,  no  artist  ever  dared  to  give  those  last 
finishing  strokes  of  the  brush.  Raphael  left  a  little 
work  undone  on  his  incomparable  painting,  the  Trans- 
figuration of  Christ.  This  was  committed  to  his  pupil 
Romano,  thoroughly  imbued  with  his  style  and  man- 
ner, and  thoroughly  acquainted  with  his  design.  In 
the  picture  gallery  of  the  Boston  Athenaeum  hangs 
Washington  Allston's  last  and  greatest  work — Bel- 
shazzar's  Feast,  just  in  the  condition  in  which  he  left 
it  at  death.  Stuart  began  a  portrait  of  J.  Q.  Adams, 
but  died  when  he  had  almost  completed  the  head. 
The  picture  was  finished  by  Sully,  but  he  would  not 
touch  the  head. 

Niebuhr,  Arnold,  and  Mackintosh,  left  their  histo- 
rical works  incomplete.  The  son  of  the  former  edited 
his  father's  papers,  but  the  labours  of  the  last  two 
have  been  left  in  their  unfinished  state.  Pascal  had 
projected  a  great  work  on  theology  and  the  internal 
evidences  of  Christianity,  and  had  thrown  together 
15* 


174  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

fragmentary  ideas,  which  he  meant  to  develope ;  but 
death  arrested  him  in  his  work.  No  one  has  presumed 
to  expand  these  fragments  into  a  system,  and  they 
have  been  published  in  their  original  form  under  the 
title  of  "Pascal's  Thoughts."  If  we  mistake  not,  the 
Lectiones  Opticse  of  Newton  were  never  completed, 
and  were  published  posthumously  without  any  addi- 
tions. Kepler  left  some  eighteen  volumes  of  manu- 
script, which  were  never  edited.  So  it  has  been  sup- 
posed that  Livy  left  several  volumes  of  his  History  in 
an  unfinished  condition,  and  that  they  were  never 
given  to  the  world.  Virgil  died  leaving  portions  of 
the  last  six  books  of  his  iEneid  incomplete.  And  so 
fearful  was  he  of  their  being  issued  in  that  condition, 
that  in  his  last  moments  he  requested  the  Emperor  to 
have  them  destroyed.  Augustus  did  not  comply  with 
his  wishes,  but  had  them  published  just  as  they  came 
from  the  hands  of  the  poet,  and  gave  the  strictest 
orders  that  there  should  be  no  supplementing  of  the 
incomplete  lines  and  broken  stanzas.  And  these 
orders  were  given,  as  we  believe,  not  because  there 
was  no  poet  equal  to  Virgil,  but  because  there  was 
none  so  like  him  in  taste,  sentiment,  style,  and  man- 
ner as  to  be  able  to  compose  lines  which  should  pos- 
sess exactly  the  same  rhythm  and  tone  of  thought. 
Augustus  may  have  been  led  to  think  thus  by  an 
incident,  which  was  the  means  of  introducing  Virgil 
to  him;  an  incident  which  illustrates  the  point  we 
are  contending  for,  viz.,  that  it  is  the  most  diffi- 
cult of   all   tasks  to   finish    successfully   that  which 


•      OF   CHRIST.  175 

another  has  begun.  Virgil  wrote  a  complimentary 
couplet,  and  pasted  it  on  the  walls  of  the  Emperor's 
palace.  Augustus  was  so  pleased  with  it,  that  he 
demanded  the  author.  A  poet,  named  Bathyllus, 
claimed  the  couplet,  and  was  rewarded  for  it  by  the 
Emperor.  Virgil  pasted,  by  night,  another  piece  on 
the  walls,  complaining  that  the  wrong  man  had 
received  the  credit  of  the  distich ;  and  said  that  the 
true  author  was  he  who  could  finish  the  five  lines 
which  he  appended,  each  beginning  with  the  same 
three  words.  Caesar,  to  discover  the  writer,  ordered 
the  poets  of  Rome  to  finish  the  lines.  All  failed, 
Bathyllus  included,  except  Virgil.  Thus  we  see,  that 
the  Mantuan  bard  risked  his  reputation,  and  desire 
of  the  monarch's  favour,  upon  his  belief  that  he  only 
who  had  commenced  the  lines  could  complete  them. 

It  has  been  regarded  as  a  most  wonderful  effort  of 
geometrical  genius,  that  Robert  Simson,  of  Edinburgh, 
could  restore  the  Porisms  of  Euclid,  by  means  of 
certain  hints  left  by  Pappus.  Why  has  the  world 
regarded  this  as  one  of  the  grandest  triumphs  of 
mathematical  talent?  Is  it  not  because  of  the  uni- 
versal belief,  that  there  is  no  task  more  arduous  than 
that  of  carrying  out  the  thoughts  of  another  ? 

We  will  add  another  illustration.  An  eminent  theo- 
logian died  a  few  years  ago,  after  completing  his  great 
work  on  Moral  Science,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  man's 
duty  to  God.  His  scarcely  less  distinguished  sons 
were  urged  to  finish  the  second  part — that  which 
would  embrace  the  reciprocal  duties  of  man  to  man. 


176  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

But,  although  aided  by  their  father's  copious  notes  on 
the  subject,  they  felt  unable  to  write  a  sequel,  which 
would  preserve  the  same  terseness  of  thought,  form 
of  argument,  unity  of  plan,  and  simplicity  of  illus- 
tration. 

If  in  sculpture,  painting,  poetry,  science,  and  lite- 
rature, it  be  found  to  be  next  to  impossible  to  supply 
increments  which  shall  blend  so  harmoniously  with 
the  primitive  work,  as  to  form  one  congruous,  sym- 
metrical whole,  what  right  has  infidelity  to  assume 
that  it  was  an  easy  matter  for  John  to  write  an  elabo- 
rate narrative,  which  so  admirably  fills  out  the  defi- 
ciencies of  the  preceding  narratives?  We  readily 
grant,  that  if  three  men  had  concocted  together  a 
fiction,  a  fourth  false  witness,  who  had  heard  their 
evidence,  might  make  his  statements  touch  theirs  at  a 
few  salient  points.  But  we  hold  it  to  be  utterly 
impossible  for  such  a  witness  to  give  testimony  enough 
to  constitute  a  volume,  comprising  hundreds  of  per- 
sonal incidents,  minute  particulars,  local  allusions, 
descriptions  of  character,  doctrinal  truths,  speeches, 
conversations,  and  public  acts — all  agreeing  with  the 
declarations  of  the  other  three,  sometimes  reiterating 
them,  sometimes  removing  their  obscurities,  sometimes 
adding  to  what  was  incomplete,  sometimes  giving  new 
but  consistent  facts,  sometimes  seeming  to  differ,  but 
really  harmonizing  always.  We  hold,  that  such  mul- 
tiplied consistencies,  under  such  multifarious  aspects, 
would  be  a  greater  miracle  than  any  recorded  in  the 
Bible. 


OF   CHRIST.  177 

Let  us  look,  too,  at  John  as  the  finisher  of  the  por- 
trait of  our  Lord.  The  other  Evangelists  made  the 
outline,  and  he  gave  colouring,  soul,  and  life  to  the 
whole  figure.  Their  combined  work  has  produced  a 
picture,  faultless  in  beauty  and  grace,  inimitable,  un- 
rivalled, unsurpassed — a  picture  which  has  been  gazed 
upon  with  admiration,  reverence  and  awe,  by  sinners 
as  well  as  saints,  infidels  as  well  as  believers,  savage 
as  well  as  civilized  nations;  by  learned  and  by  un- 
learned, by  wise  and  by  foolish,  by  the  young  and  by 
the  aged,  by  all  classes  and  by  all  conditions.  And 
as  we  love  to  look  upon  the  portraits  of  our  friends, 
taken  at  different  periods  of  their  lives,  so  we  may 
imagine  that  angels  and  glorified  spirits  from  other 
worlds,  turn  to  this  picture,  made  by  the  Evangelists, 
to  trace  with  adoring  rapture  the  lineaments  of  their 
Sovereign  and  King,  in  the  face  of  the  lowly  man  of 
Nazareth. 

How  is  it  possible  to  believe,  that  the  fishermen  of 
Galilee  could,  by  their  own  unaided  power,  produce 
such  a  perfect  picture  ?  Even  Rousseau  thought  that 
the  conception  and  the  portraiture  of  the  character  of 
our  blessed  Redeemer  were  miraculous.  Let  modern 
infidels  blush  to  hear  him  say:  "It  is  more  incon- 
ceivable that  a  number  of  persons  should  agree  to 
write  such  a  history,  (of  Christ,)  than  that  one  man 
only  should  form  the  subject  of  it.  The  Jewish 
authors  were  incapable  of  the  diction,  and  strangers 
to  the  morality  contained  in  the  Gospel,  the  marks 
of  whose  truth  are  so  striking  and  inimitable,  that  the 


178  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

inventor  would  be  a  more  astonishing  character  than 
the  hero."  But  if  it  be  difficult  to  conceive  how 
four  men  working  together  could  produce  so  match- 
less a  picture,  how  much  is  the  difficulty  enhanced  in 
our  estimation,  by  the  reflection  that  three  of  them 
merely  began  it,  while  the  fourth  was  left  to  com- 
plete it ! 

And  thus  we  see,  that  the  supplementing  by  John, 
of  the  accounts  of  the  other  Evangelists,  so  far  from 
constituting  an  objection  against  the  credibility  of  the 
Evangelists,  is  truly  the  very  strongest  proof  of  their 
reliability. 

The  57th  verse  reads  thus :  "And  he  denied  him, 
saying,  Woman,  I  know  him  not." 

John  tells  us  that  when  the  portress  asked  Peter, 
"Art  not  thou  also  one  of  this  man's  disciples?  he 
saith,  I  am  not."  And  it  is  remarkable,  that  this  is 
the  strongest  form  of  denial  which  John  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Peter.  The  denial,  as  recorded  by  Matthew, 
is  much  more  emphatic :  "And  a  damsel  came  unto 
him,  saying,  Thou  also  wast  with  Jesus  of  Galilee. 
But  he  denied  before  them  all,  saying,  I  know  not 
what  thou  say  est."  Mark  relates  the  denial  with 
additional  emphasis :  "And  thou  also  wast  with  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.  But  he  denied,  saying,  I  know  not, 
neither  understand  I  what  thou  sayest ;  and  he  went 
out  into  the  porch,  and  the  cock  crew." 

We  see,  that  while  the  witnesses  agree  substantially 
about  the  fact,  they  have  related  it,  each  in  his  own 
peculiar  way.     We  will  make  a  few  comments  upon 


OF   CHRIST.  179 

their  respective  accounts,  beginning  with  that  of  Luke. 
Our  impression  of  this  Evangelist  is,  that  like  the 
sinner  of  his  own  touching  story,  his  sins,  which  were 
many,  had  been  forgiven ;  for  he  loved  much.  Luke 
vii.  47.  He  is  essentially  the  Evangelist  for  the 
sinner.  There  is  more  encouragement  for  the  peni- 
tent offender  in  his  Gospel,  than  in  the  other  three 
Gospels  combined.  We  propose  to  show  this  more 
fully  hereafter.  Assuming  it  for  the  present,  we  can 
point  to  some  traces  of  that  overflowing  love  to  Christ 
which  is  to  be  expected  in  one  who  had  been  freely 
and  fully  forgiven.  The  story  of  Peter's  denial  con- 
tains one  of  those  natural  and  exquisite  touches,  which 
thrill  so  upon  the  heart  of  the  long-estranged,  but 
now  recovered  child  of  God.  With  melting  tender- 
ness, Luke  tells  us,  that  Peter  denied  him,  his  Master, 
his  Leader,  his  Friend,  his  Saviour.  It  is  the  denial 
of  Jesus  which  excites  the  astonishment  and  regret  of 
"the  beloved  physician."  He  does  not  stop,  with 
Mark,  to  notice  the  emphatic  form  of  the  falsehood, 
nor  with  Matthew,  to  notice  its  publicity — that  it  was 
uttered  "before  them  all."  The  enormity  of  the 
offence,  in  his  estimation,  consisted,  not  in  the  man- 
ner, nor  in  the  place  where  it  was  committed,  but  in 
the  fact  that  it  was  a  wrong  to  the  Redeemer  of 
sinners. 

John  preserves  his  individuality  as  well  as  Luke. 
With  characteristic  mildness,  he  tells  the  tale  in  its 
least  offensive  form.  He  does  not,  with  Mark,  notice 
the  repetition  of  the  same  idea,  "  I  know  not,  neither 


180  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

understand;"  nor  does  he,  with  Luke,  call  attention 
to  the  offence  as  committed  against  Jesus;  nor  yet 
does  he,  with  Matthew,  mention,  as  an  aggravation  of 
the  sin,  that  it  was  in  the  presence  of  the  enemies  of 
our  Lord. 

Mark,  writing  under  the  direction  of  Peter,  gives 
us,  doubtless,  the  very  language  used  by  that  frail 
disciple :  and  it  is  a  clear  proof  of  Peter's  honesty, 
that  he  permitted  the  record  of  his  denial,  aggravated 
by  the  double  falsehood  of  not  knowing  nor  under- 
standing what  he  was  charged  with.  Mark,  further- 
more, tells  us  of  another  circumstance  that  enhanced 
the  guilt  of  the  second  denial  of  Peter.  As  this 
Evangelist  had  alone  mentioned  tivo  Growings  of  the 
cock,  in  the  prediction  of  our  Saviour  concerning  the 
defection  of  Peter ;  so  he  alone  tells  of  the  first  crow- 
ing. This  was  immediately  after  the  first  denial,  and 
ought  to  have  recalled  Peter  to  a  sense  of  duty. 
That  it  did  not  have  that  effect,  we  can  only  attribute 
to  his  being  under  the  influence  of  the  "hour  and  the 
power  of  darkness."  In  warning  Peter  by  means  of 
the  first  cock-crow,  God  dealt  with  him  just  as  he  now 
deals  with  us  all.  He  admonishes  for  the  first  offence, 
and  seeks  to  bring  us  back  to  the  path  of  rectitude. 
But  we  go  off,  like  Peter,  and  commit  the  same  sin 
again  and  yet  again.  The  Evangelist,  in  noticing  the 
fruitless  admonition  has  but  given  us  a  single  leaf 
in  the  folio  history  of  the  world.  But  that  which 
we  call  attention  to  now,  is  the  honesty  of  Peter 
in  permitting  the  relation  of  an  unheeded  warning. 


OF   CHRIST.  181 

If  lie  had  not  communicated  this  fact  to  Mark,  the 
amanuensis  could  not  have  gotten  it  from  any  other 
source. 

45.  On  summing  up  our  evidence,  we  find  once 
more  a  triune  argument  for  the  credibility  of  the  wit- 
nesses— First,  Substantial  agreement  coupled  with  an 
independent  mode  of  narration  by  the  respective  wit- 
nesses ;  Second,  The  preservation  of  individual  char- 
acteristics by  Luke  and  John ;  Third,  The  record  by 
Peter's  secretary,  of  things  discreditable  to  that  dis- 
ciple. 

The  58th  verse  is  in  these  words :  "And  after  a 
little  while  another  saw  him  and  said,  Thou  art  also 
of  them.     And  Peter  said,  Man,  I  am  not." 

We  would  naturally  infer  from  this  verse  in  con- 
nection Avith  the  preceding,  that  Peter  was  still  by 
the  fire  in  the  court,  when  he  denied  his  Master  the 
second  time.  John  leaves  us  no  ground  to  doubt  it. 
He  says,  "And  Simon  Peter  stood  and  warmed  him- 
self. They  said,  therefore,  unto  him,  Art  not  thou 
also  one  of  his  disciples  ?  He  denied  it,  and  said,  I 
am  not."  Matthew  and  Mark  seem  to  differ  from 
both  Luke  and  John,  with  respect  to  the  person  who 
interrogated  Peter,  and  also  in  regard  to  the  place 
of  the  second  denial.  Matthew  says,  "And  when  he 
was  gone  out  into  the  porch  (entry,)  another  maid  saw 
him,  and  said  unto  them  that  were  there,  This  fellow 
was  also  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  And  again  he 
denied  with  an  oath,  I  do  not  know  the  man."  Mark 
says,  "And  he  went  out  into  the  porch,  (entry;)  and 
16 


182  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

the  cock  crew.  And  a  maid  saw  him  again,  and 
began  to  say  to  them  that  stood  by,  This  is  one  of 
them.     And  he  denied  it  again." 

Before  attempting  to  reconcile  the  testimony  of  the 
first  two  Evangelists  with  that  of  the  last  two,  we  will 
notice  the  mutual  supplementing  between  Matthew 
and  Mark.  While  the  former  leaves  it  doubtful  at 
what  time  Peter  went  out  into  the  porch,  the  latter 
shows  that  it  was  immediately  after  the  first  denial, 
and  unquestionably  with  the  view  of  escaping  the 
searching  scrutiny  of  those  around  the  fireside.  "We 
do  not  agree  with  the  commentators  in  supposing  that 
Peter  meditated  an  escape  from  the  palace.  His 
character  was  a  strange  compound  of  strength  and 
weakness.  Love  to  Christ  was  singularly  blended  in 
him,  with  intense  regard  for  his  personal  safety.  He 
had  come  "to  see  the  end,"  and  was  resolved  to 
accomplish  that  object,  without  danger  to  himself. 
He,  therefore,  left  the  court,  to  escape  the  trouble- 
some inquisition,  facilitated  by  the  light  of  the  fire, 
and  sought  the  darkness  of  the  archway.  But  here 
he  encountered  another  maid.  In  this  case,  Matthew 
supplements  Mark.  We  might  have  supposed  from 
what  the  latter  says,  that  it  was  the  same  watchful 
portress,  who  pertinaciously  persisted  in  her  suspicions. 
And  from  the  indefinite  allusion  of  Mark  to  the  by- 
standers, we  might  have  been  led  to  believe  that  refer- 
ence was  had  to  those  around  the  fire.  But  Matthew 
tells  us  expressly  that  this  other  maid  spake  to  "  them 
that  were  there,"  that  is,  to  those  in  the  porch.     And 


or  christ.  183 

thus  the  two  writers  in  turn  correct  the  errors  that 
we  might  have  fallen  into,  by  reading  separately  their 
respective  narratives. 

From  Matthew's  reference  to  the  two  maids,  and 
other  persons  in  the  archway,  we  conclude  that  there 
was  quite  an  assemblage  of  servants  and  idlers  in  their 
wonted  place  of  gossip,  drawn  there  partly  by  the 
force  of  habit,  partly  to  guard  the  entrance,  and 
partly  by  the  desire  to  use  the  benches  of  the  entry 
as  seats  or  couches.  With  this  in  view,  there  will  be 
no  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  statements  of  the  Evan- 
gelists. We  imagine  that  when  Peter  heard  the  maid 
accuse  him  to  the  bystanders,  he  naturally  supposed 
that  there  would  be  less  safety  for  him  in  the  porch 
among  a  crowd  of  lawless  servants,  than  in  the  court, 
where  the  presence  of  the  military  might  serve  as  a 
check  to  personal  violence.  Unwilling  to  flee,  yet 
extremely  solicitous  for  his  own  safety,  he  returned 
to  the  fireside  as  the  place  of  greatest  security.  Some 
of  the  menials  followed  him  from  the  entry,  and  once 
more  aroused  the  suspicions  of  those  about  the  fire. 
Several  of  these,  according  to  John,  began  simultane- 
ously to  speak  among  themselves,  or  to  him  person- 
ally, accusing  him  of  being  a  disciple  of  Jesus.  Peter 
then  addressed  himself  to  the  most  vociferous  of  his 
accusers,  or  to  the  principal  personage  among  them, 
and  said,  "Man,  I  am  not." 

We  do  not  pretend  to  assert  that  the  things  occur- 
red just  as  we  have  described  them.  All  that  we 
aim  at  is  a  plausible  explanation  of  supposed  difficul- 


184  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

ties.  We  are  bound  to  believe  witnesses,  if  we  do 
not  detect  them  tripping  in  their  evidence.  We  are 
bound  to  receive  their  statements  as  true,  if  they  con- 
tain no  irreconcilable  discrepancies.  We  are  bound 
to  accept  their  testimony,  if  apparent  differences  can 
be  made  to  harmonize  by  any  reasonable  system  of 
interpretation.  The  onus  lies  upon  the  objector.  It 
is  for  him  to  prove  their  falsehood,  by  showing  that 
their  evidence  cannot  be  made  to  correspond  by  any 
device  whatever.  Let  the  Evangelists  be  tried  by 
this  well  known  rule.  It  will  then  be  seen  how  weak 
and  frivolous  is  the  allegation  of  infidelity,  that  the 
four  witnesses  contradict  each  other,  when  Matthew 
and  Mark  speak  of  the  second  accusation  against 
Peter,  as  having  been  made  by  a  woman ;  while  Luke 
speaks  of  it  as  having  been  made  by  a  man;  and 
John,  as  having  been  made  by  several  men.  There 
would  be  some  ground  for  this  confident  assertion  had 
Matthew  and  Mark  said  that  none  but  a  woman  made 
it,  and  Luke  had  declared  with  equal  precision  that 
none  but  a  man  made  it.  There  would  be  in  that 
case  a  flat  contradiction  on  the  part  of  Luke  of  the 
statements  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  Furthermore,  had 
Luke  explicitly  declared  that  the  charge  against  Peter 
was  made  by  one  man  only,  while  John  as  distinctly 
stated  that  several  men  spoke  personally  to  Peter; 
the  last  two  Evangelists  would  then  contradict  one 
another.  But  so  far  are  Matthew  and  Mark  from 
saying  that  a  maid  was  the  only  person  to  accuse 
Peter,  they  do  not  even  say  that  he  was  accused  by  a 


OF    CHRIST.  185 

maid  at  all.  Matthew  tells  us  that  a  maid  spake 
"unto  them  that  were  there;"  and  Mark  says  that  she 
spake  "to  them  that  stood  by/'  Neither  of  them 
intimates  that  she  addressed  a  single  word  to  Peter. 
The  much  vaunted  disagreement  between  the  first 
three  Evangelists  falls  then  to  the  ground.  And 
upon  such  a  frail  thing  as  this  does  infidelity  build  its 
hopes  that  the  gospel  is  a  fiction !  Upon  a  seeming 
difference,  which  a  Sabbath-school  scholar  might  re- 
concile, does  it  place  its  trust  that  there  is  no  world 
of  endless  woe  for  those  who  reject  the  gospel  of  the 
Son  of  God.  Alas !  how  has  sin  darkened  the  under- 
standing, perverted  the  judgment,  and  seared  the 
conscience  ! 

The  difference  between  Luke  and  John  is  just  of 
the  character  that  might  be  expected  between  inde- 
pendent witnesses,  who  had  had  no  consultation  with 
each  other  about  what  they  should  respectively  depone. 
Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  the  several  ac- 
counts  of  these  two  Evangelists.  No  statements  when 
combined  ever  exhibited  more  intrinsic  marks  of 
truthfulness.  Let  us  try  to  form  an  idea  of  the  scene 
described  by  them.  Let  us  imagine  a  promiscuous 
assembly  gathered  at  this  moment  around  a  fire  in 
some  open  yard,  for  the  purpose  of  witnessing  the 
trial  of  a  supposed  malefactor,  and  that  a  stranger 
has  just  joined  himself  to  the  crowd.  Let  it  now  be 
suddenly  whispered  that  the  stranger  is  a  friend,  an 
accomplice  even,  of  the  man  under  trial.  What  more 
natural  than  that  the  tale  should  be  repeated  from 
16* 


186  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

mouth  to  mouth,  until  one  bolder,  or  of  more  official 
dignity  than  the  rest,  should  fling  it  in  the  teeth  of 
the  new-comer.  And  what  more  natural  than  that  he 
should  reply  to  this  man,  and  not  to  the  whole  crowd. 
And  this  is  exactly  the  order  of  relation  by  Luke 
and  John.  The  difference  between  them  amounts  to 
nothing  more  than  this — the  one  tells  of  the  indefinite 
accusation  by  the  mixed  company;  the  other  of  its 
personal  application  to  Peter  by  a  single  individual 
of  the  company. 

46.  So  far  are  we  from  seeing  any  difficulty  in  the 
two  accounts,  that  if  called  upon  to  give  an  example 
of  the  happy  correspondence  of  independent  evidence, 
we  would  select  this  very  case.  But  in  addition  to 
this,  John  employs  a  word,  which  is,  to  our  mind,  full 
of  meaning:  "They  said,  therefore,  unto  him."  It  is 
evident  that  the  therefore  refers  to  something  not 
expressed.  With  the  light  thrown  upon  this  word  by 
Matthew  and  Mark,  we  think  that  wTe  are  not  strain- 
ing a  point,  when  we  suppose  that  it  refers  to  the 
report  of  the  servants  from  the  archway.  These  had 
excited  suspicion  against  Peter  in  the  minds  of  the 
men  about  the  fire,  and  the  latter  therefore  said  unto 
him,  "Art  not  thou  also  one  of  his  disciples?" 

The  59th  verse  is  as  follows :  "And  about  the  space 
of  one  hour  after,  another  confidently  affirmed,  say- 
ing, Of  a  truth,  this  fellow  also  was  with  him ;  for  he 
is  a  Galilean." 

A  cursory  inspection  of  this  verse  seems  to  show 
that  the  third  denial  of  Peter  was  made  about  an  hour 


OF   CHRIST.  187 

after  the  second  denial  to  some  man,  who  had  detected 
about  him  something  of  a  Galilean  character.  We 
are  not  told  who  the  man  was,  nor  yet  what  it  was 
about  Peter  which  led  to  the  suspicion  of  his  being 
from  the  north  of  Palestine.  Was  the  challenger  of 
the  apostle  a  ruthless  Roman  soldier?  Was  he  a 
Jewish  officer,  ever  keen  on  the  scent  of  blood?  Was 
he  a  vindictive  Pharisee,  burning  for  another  victim  ? 
Was  he  a  Scribe,  "remorseless  as  death,  and  cruel  as 
the  grave"?  Was  he  an  elder,  inflamed  with  hate 
against  our  glorious  elder  Brother,  and  all  who  ad- 
hered to  him? 

John  informs  us  that  the  man  who  accosted  Peter 
was  none  of  these :  "  One  of  the  servants  of  the  high- 
priest  (being  his  kinsman  whose  ear  Peter  cut  off) 
saith,  Did  I  not  see  thee  in  the  garden  with  him?" 
The  man,  then,  was  a  servant  of  the  high-priest,  and 
the  kinsman  of  Malchus.  So  far  the  testimony  of 
John  is  explicit ;  but  it  does  not  explain  why  Peter 
was  suspected  of  being  a  Galilean.  The  suspicion  may 
have  been  excited  by  his  personal  appearance,  or  by 
his  dress,  or  by  his  deportment,  or  by  his  accent,  or 
by  some  allusion  to  Galilee  in  his  fireside  talk  with 
the  bystanders.  We  might  have  conjectured  that  the 
place  of  his  nativity  was  discovered  in  any  one  of  these 
ways.  Matthew,  however,  shows  that  he  was  detected 
by  something  in  his  speech:  "And  after  a  while  came 
unto  him  they  that  stood  by,  and  said  to  Peter,  Surely 
thou  also  art  one  of  them ;  for  thy  speech  bewrayeth 
thee."     Some  of  our  conjectures  are  now  thrown  out 


188  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

as  inadmissible.  Peter  was  not  discovered  to  be  a 
Galilean  by  his  personal  appearance,  nor  by  his  dress, 
nor  yet  by  his  deportment.  He  was  betrayed  by  his 
speech.  How  was  he  thus  betrayed  ?  Was  there  some 
peculiarity  in  his  pronunciation?  Or  had  he  been 
entrapped  into  some  reference  to  his  home  in  Galilee  ? 
On  turning  to  Mark,  we  find  that  the  manner,  and  not 
the  matter  of  his  talk,  led  to  Peter's  exposure :  "And 
a  little  after,  they  that  stood  by  said  again  to  Peter, 
Surely  thou  art  one  of  them ;  for  thou  art  a  Galilean, 
and  thy  speech  agreeth  thereto."  Poor  Peter  was 
then  found  out  by  his  accent,  his  brogue.  He  had 
probably  tried  to  put  on  a  bold  face  before  his  ac- 
cusers, and  enter  into  a  free  and  easy  conversation ; 
and  in  his  case,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  effort  at 
concealment  but  led  to  detection. 

There  is  much  in  these  parallel  statements  of  the 
Evangelists  that  deserves  our  consideration.  We  ob- 
serve, in  the  first  place,  that  while  there  is  no  dis- 
agreement among  them  as  to  the  challenger  of  Peter, 
nor  as  to  the  manner  of  his  detection,  yet  their  joint 
testimony  is  necessary  to  the  full  understanding  of  the 
whole  matter.  Matthew  and  Mark  show  that  several 
persons  gathered  around  Peter,  denouncing  him  as  a 
Galilean.  Luke  shows  that  one  of  them  took  upon 
himself  the  office  of  speaker,  and  John  shows  that  this 
man  was  the  kinsman  of  Malchus.  In  the  second 
place,  we  notice  that  Luke  tells  of  the  suspicion  that 
Peter  was  a  Galilean.  Matthew  informs  us  that  some- 
thing in  his  speech  caused  this  suspicion,  and  Mark 


OP   CHRIST.  189 

shows  that  this  peculiarity  in  his  speech  was  one  of 
pronunciation.  We  notice,  in  the  third  place,  that  the 
nice  attention  to  detail  exhibited,  is  wholly  at  vari- 
ance with  forgery.  Men  who  were  relating  a  fictitious 
story,  would  never  have  thought  of  telling  so  natural 
an  incident  as  that  of  the  exposure  of  Peter  by  means 
of  his  dialect.  Still  less  would  they  have  told  it  in 
such  an  artless,  offhand  manner.  We  notice,  in  the 
fourth  place,  that  the  reference  to  the  dialect  of  Gali- 
lee, comports  with  the  historical  fact.  It  is  well 
established  by  profane  writers,  as  well  as  by  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  that  the  pronunciation  of 
this  country  was  "broader  and  flatter  than  that  of 
Judea,  and  differed  from  the  latter  in  confounding 
the  gutturals  and  the  last  two  letters  of  the  Hebrew 
alphabet." 

We  have  a  notable  instance  of  this  difference  re- 
corded as  far  back  as  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Judges. 
And  so  marked  was  the  distinction  between  the  Judean 
and  Galilean  accents,  that  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusa- 
lem, on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  were  able  to  recognize 
the  speakers  as  Galileans,  by  their  peculiar  pronuncia- 
tion. Acts  xii.  6.  Nor  need  we  be  surprised  that 
people  of  a  common  origin  and  a  common  faith  should 
speak  so  differently.  The  dialect  of  several  counties 
in  England  is  imperfectly  understood  in  other  parts 
of  the  same  country.  And  in  our  own  land,  there  are 
local  phrases  and  accents  in  one  section,  which  are 
almost  wholly  unintelligible  in  other  sections,  even  of 
the  same  State. 


190  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

47.  On  reviewing  our  evidence,  we  find  that  we 
have  a  four-fold  argument  for  the  credibility  of  the 
witnesses — an  argument  of  the  very  kind  which  bar- 
risters love  to  have  when  they  make  their  appeals  to 
intelligent  juries. 

So  far,  we  have  only  observed  differences  arising 
from  the  evident  incompleteness  of  the  respective  ac- 
counts taken  by  themselves.  But  now  we  have  to 
examine  what  seems  to  be  real  discrepancies.  We 
have  seen  that  Luke  appears  to  place  the  third  denial 
of  Peter,  about  one  hour  after  the  second  denial. 
And  this  inference  from  Luke's  language  has  been 
so  generally  made,  that  we  know  not  a  single  exposi- 
tor who  has  taken  a  different  view.  But  we  think 
that  the  popular  notion  is  wrong,  and  that  the  second 
denial  was  succeeded  in  a  few  moments  by  the  third. 
We  adhered  to  the  common  opinion  in  attempting  to 
estimate  the  time  spent  in  the  garden.  It  was  then 
premature  to  attempt  a  refutation  of  the  received 
theory.  Besides,  our  calculation  of  the  time  spent  in 
the  house  of  Caiaphas  was  in  no  wise  affected  by  the 
common,  but,  as  we  believe,  erroneous  construction 
put  upon  Luke's  words. 

John  evidently  means  to  teach  that  Peter  was  chal- 
lenged by  the  kinsman  of  Malchus,  immediately  after 
his  second  denial.  But  even  if  we  set  down  John's 
testimony  as  doubtful,  we  cannot  put  aside  the  direct 
declarations  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  former,  after 
recording  the  second  denial,  adds,  "And  after  a  while 
(meta  mikrori)  came  unto  him  they  that  stood  by,  &c." 


OF   CHRIST.  191 

Mark  uses  the  same  Greek  word  to  designate  the 
little  interval  of  time  between  the  two  denials ;  but 
our  translators  have  given  it  the  more  appropriate 
rendering  of  " a  little  after."  We  are  not  disposed 
to  spread  this  little  time  over  an  hour,  and  to  believe 
with  expositors  that  the  hour  of  Luke  is  the  same  as 
the  little  while  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  This  assumes 
carelessness  either  on  the  part  of  Luke,  or  on  that 
of  the  first  two  writers.  But  Luke  is  too  circumstan- 
tial, and  too  exact  in  his  details,  to  permit  us  to 
imagine  any  loose  use  of  language  from  him.  He 
frequently  makes  omissions,  but  what  he  does  relate 
is  related  with  minuteness  and  care.  And,  however 
we  might  be  inclined  to  reconcile  the  difference  by  an 
assumption  of  negligence  on  the  part  of  Matthew, 
it  plainly  will  not  do  to  charge  the  Secretary  of  Peter 
with  any  such  negligence.  Every  circumstance  con- 
nected with  the  denial  must  have  been  stereotyped  upon 
the  brain  of  the  penitent  disciple.  If  he  had  made 
any  mistake  at  all  in  regard  to  the  time  that  elapsed 
between  his  second  and  third  denials,  the  mistake 
would  have  been  on  the  side  of  the  greater  length. 
If  he  were  really  accosted  for  the  third  time,  an  hour 
after  his  second  denial,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he,  so 
tortured  with  fear  for  himself,  and  solicitude  for  his 
Master,  should  have  shortened  the  interval.  Men, 
who  have  undergone  great  mental  or  bodily  distress, 
often  exaggerate  the  length  of  their  suffering,  but 
they  never  suppose  the  period  to  have  been  less  than 
it  really  was. 


192  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

The  common  solution  of  the  difficulty  seems  then, 
to  us,  to  be  too  absurd  to  be  admitted  for  a  moment. 
We  can  reconcile  the  discordant  accounts  by  a  simpler 
and,  we  think,  more  natural  hypothesis.  Our  theory 
is,  that  the  "hour"  of  Luke  is  measured  from  the  first 
denial,  and  that  the  "little  after"  of  Matthew  and 
Mark  is  measured  from  the  second  denial.  Luke  tells 
us  of  the  first  denial,  and  then  adds,  "And  after  a 
little  while  another  saw  him,  &c,"  and  then  he  sub- 
joins in  the  same  connection,  "And  about  the  space 
of  one  hour  after,"  that  is,  about  one  hour  after  the 
first  denial.  There  is  nothing  either  in  the  Greek 
text,  or  in  the  English  translation,  which  forbids  us 
from  estimating  the  hour  from  the  time  of  the  first 
denial.  And,  in  fact,  we  think  that  this  is  the  most 
natural  mode  of  estimation.  The  defeat  of  Gates 
at  Camden  occurred  in  August,  1780.  The  victory 
at  King's  Mountain,  probably  the  most  brilliant  of 
the  Revolution,  was  gained  in  October  of  the  same 
year.  The  British  were  again  defeated  on  Broad 
River  in  November.  Now,  suppose  that  some  one 
should  say  that  the  battle  of  King's  Mountain  was 
won  two  months  after  Gates's  defeat,  and  that  three 
months  after,  the  battle  on  Broad  River  was  also  won ; 
would  there  be  any  violation  of  grammatical  construc- 
tion, or  the  rules  of  common  sense,  in  counting  the 
three  months  from  the  defeat  at  Camden.  Would 
not  this  in  fact  be  the  most  natural  mode  of  compu- 
tation? 

Apply  this  process  of  calculation  to  the  hour  of 


OF   CHRIST.  193 

Luke,  and  you  will  have  the  most  perfect  agreement 
between  him  and  the  other  three  Evangelists.  This 
affords  a  plausible  solution  of  the  difficulty,  and  this 
is  all  that  we  are  bound  to  give.  It  shows  how  the 
discrepancy  may  be  reconciled;  and  it  is  for  the 
objector  to  show  that  it  cannot  be  thus  reconciled. 
But  this  is  an  impossible  task  for  him.  The  Greek 
text  admits  our  explanation,  and  will  not  be  bent  and 
twisted  to  suit  the  cavils  of  infidelity. 

A  comparison  of  the  Evangelists  reveals  an  exqui- 
site touch,  so  true  to  nature,  that  it  claims  our  atten- 
tion. Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  Peter  as  seated  by 
the  fire,  when  accosted  by  the  maid ;  but  John  tells 
us  of  his  standing  by  the  fire.  And  in  like  manner, 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  John  represent  the  last  two  who 
accosted  Peter,  as  standing  at  the  time  they  made 
their  accusation.  All  this  is  exceedingly  natural. 
Peter  and  all  the  rest  were  doubtless  seated  at  first 
round  the  fire,  just  as  Matthew  and  Mark  describe 
them ;  but  when  the  maid  accused  Peter,  he  and  all 
about  him  rose  to  their  feet. 

48.  We  have,  in  this  case,  a  two-fold  proof  of  the 
truth  of  the  evidence — first,  from  the  reconcilement 
of  a  difficulty;  second,  from  the  naturalness  of  the 
narration. 

The  60th  verse  reads  thus:  "And  Peter  said,  Man, 
I  know  not  what  thou  sayest.  And  immediately, 
while  he  yet  spake,  the  cock  crew." 

The  Evangelist  tells  us  merely  of  the  denial  of 
Peter,  without  telling  us  that  this  was  made  in  an 
17 


194  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

emphatic  or  a  profane  manner.  John,  too,  simply 
records  the  fact,  "Peter  then  denied  again;  and  im- 
mediately the  cock  crew."  But  Matthew  and  Mark 
show  that  Peter  added  profanity  to  the  sin  of  false- 
hood: "Then  began  he  to  curse  and  to  swear,  saying, 
I  know  not  the  man.  And  immediately  the  cock 
crew."  (Matthew.)  "But  he  began  to  curse  and  to 
swear,  saying,  I  know  not  this  man  of  whom  ye  speak. 
And  the  second  time  the  cock  crew."  (Mark.) 

We  remark,  upon  these  parallel  statements,  that 
there  is  a  difference  between  them,  but  no  disagree- 
ment. The  first  two  Evangelists  tell  more  than  the 
last  two,  but  they  do  not  contradict  them.  The  four 
witnesses  agree  perfectly,  when  speaking  of  the  same 
thing;  but  Matthew  and  Mark  give  particulars  which 
Luke  and  John  pass  over.  Surely,  a  sin-darkened 
vision  alone  is  keen  enough  to  see  discrepancy  in 
this. 

A  traveller  visits  Westminster  Abbey,  and  describes 
certain  monuments  of  the  illustrious  dead.  A  second 
traveller  gives  corresponding  descriptions  of  the  same 
monuments ;  but  in  addition,  he  speaks  of  many  more, 
not  noticed  by  the  first.  No  man  of  common  sense 
would  say  that  the  two  travellers  disagreed,  because 
the  second  was  a  more  acute  observer  or  circumstan- 
tial writer  than  the  second.  How  great  then  must  be 
the  effrontery  of  infidelity,  in  asserting  a  contradiction 
between  the  Evangelists,  for  the  reason  that  Matthew 
and  Mark  give  more  copious  details  than  do  Luke  and 
John,  touching  the  third  denial  of  Peter ! 


I 


OF    CHRIST.  195 

Again,  two  historians  write  concerning  the  same 
period  of  time.  The  incidents,  which  they  handle  in 
common,  are  treated  precisely  in  the  same  way ;  but 
one  of  them  mentions  facts  and  circumstances  that 
the  other  does  not.  Is  there  any  one  so  foolish  as  to 
contend  that  the  voluminous  writer  contradicts  the 
epitomist?  Macaulay  expands  into  several  chapters, 
that  which  the  author  of  a  historical  compend  would 
dispose  of  in  a  single  page.  Does  the  diffuseness  of 
Macaulay  falsify  the  condensation  of  the  other  ?  The 
very  schoolboy  can  see  that  this  is  not  the  case. 
Shall  we  apply  rules  of  common  sense  to  books  of 
travel  and  of  history,  and  withhold  them  from  the 
records  of  the  Evangelists  ? 

Having  shown  that  the  several  accounts  do  not 
clash,  it  only  remains  to  examine  their  bearing  upon 
the  truthfulness  of  the  Evangelists.  We  observe,  in 
the  first  place,  that  the  circumstantiality  of  Matthew 
is  no  small  proof  of  his  integrity  as  a  witness.  He 
wrote  for  the  Jews,  and  in  the  life-time  of  some,  if  not 
of  most  of  those  who  stood  around  the  fire  in  the  cen- 
tral court  of  the  palace  of  the  high-priest.  If  the 
facts  were  not  just  as  he  related  them,  there  were  men 
still  living  to  impugn  his  veracity.  It  is  preposterous 
to  suppose  that  he  would  have  made  statements  which, 
if  untrue,  could  have  been  contradicted  so  easily.  A 
false  witness,  with  the  least  modicum  of  prudence, 
never  ventures  to  give  minute  particulars;  still  less 
does  he  attempt  to  falsify,  touching  known  and  fami- 
liar incidents.     The  most  bungling  perjurer  does  not 


196  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

thus  stultify  himself.  If  John,  instead  of  Matthew, 
had  told  with  circumstantial  exactness,  the  precise 
manner  of  Peter's  third  denial,  infidelity  would  have 
been  swift  to  raise  the  objection  that  John  wrote  after 
all  the  witnesses  of  the  transactions  had  passed  from 
time  to  eternity.  We  would  like  to  turn  their  own 
guns  upon  the  ranks  of  the  enemy.  We  would  like 
to  confound  them  with  their  own  favourite  objection. 
Let  them  ponder  well  the  fact  that  John  is  the  least 
circumstantial  of  the  four  Evangelists.  He  deals  in 
doctrines,  not  in  the  events.  In  this  respect,  his  Gos- 
pel stands  out  in  remarkable  contrast  with  that  of 
Matthew,  the  Evangelist  of  the  Jews. 

Thus  it  is  the  latter,  and  not  the  former,  who  records 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  If  there  were  no  such 
address  delivered,  there  were  thousands  still  alive 
when  Matthew  wrote,  who  could  denounce  him  for 
falsehood.  Thus  it  is  Matthew,  and  not  John,  who 
tells  that  "four  thousand  men,  besides  women  and 
children,"  were  miraculously  fed  with  "seven  loaves 
and  a  few  little  fishes."  And  though  John  tells  of 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  yet  the  miracle  is 
plainly  subordinate  to  the  doctrine  inculcated  by  it. 
And  it  was  plainly  recorded  in  order  to  teach  the 
great  truth,  that  Jesus  was  "the  bread  of  life."  And 
this  remark  may  be  made  of  most  of  the  miracles  re- 
lated by  John.  They  are  merely  introductory  to  the 
vital  and  essential  doctrines  which  "  the  beloved  dis- 
ciple" wished  to  impress  upon  his  readers.  Again,  it 
is  Matthew  and  not  John,  who  tells  of  Christ's  trium- 


OF   CHRIST.  197 

phant  entry  into  Jerusalem,  amidst  the  rejoicing 
hosannahs  of  the  multitude.  If  there  had  been  no 
such  triumphant  procession,  the  whole  city  could  have 
disproved  it.  Thus,  too,  it  is  Matthew  and  not  John, 
who  tells  of  Christ's  prediction  of  the  destruction  of 
.Jerusalem.  Infidelity,  then,  with  all  its  impudence 
and  recklessness,  cannot  say  that  the  writer  shaped 
the  prediction  to  suit  the  event.  For  Matthew  wrote 
before  "the  abomination  of  desolation"  was  seen  in 
the  holy  place.  Thus,  too,  it  is  Matthew  and  not 
John,  who  tells  of  the  rending  of  the  veil  of  the  tem- 
ple, the  quaking  of  the  earth,  and  the  shivering  of 
the  rocks,  at  the  death  of  Christ.  If  these  displays 
of  divine  power  were  not  really  exhibited,  Matthew 
made  his  statements  in  the  face  of  the  millions  of 
Judea  still  living,  who  had  been  present  at  the  feast 
of  the  passover.  If  these  facts  had  been  recorded  by 
John  alone,  how  infidelity  would  have  exulted  over 
the  omission  of  the  other  Evangelists ;  how  the 
scoffer  would  have  sneered,  and  said  that  the  occur- 
rences were  not  related  until  there  was  none  left  who 
could  gainsay  or  deny  them. 

Again,  it  is  Matthew  and  not  John,  who  tells  that 
when  the  Lord  of  life  gave  up  the  ghost,  "the  graves 
were  opened;  and  many  bodies  of  the  saints  which 
slept,  arose,  and  came  out  of  the  graves  after  his 
resurrection,  and  went  into  the  holy  city,  and  ap- 
peared unto  many."  Thus,  too,  it  is  Matthew  and 
not  John,  who  tells  how  the  chief  priests  and  Phari- 
sees came  together  unto  Pilate,  saying,  Sir,  we  re- 
17* 


198  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

member  that  that  deceiver  said,  while  he  was  yet  alive, 
After  three  days  I  will  arise  again.  Command,  there- 
fore, that  the  sepulchre  be  made  sure  until  the  third 
day,  lest  his  disciples  come  by  night,  and  steal  him 
away,  and  say  unto  the  people,  He  is  risen  from  the 
dead;  so  the  last  error  shall  be  worse  than  the  first." 
Many  of  these  priests  and  Pharisees  must  have  been 
still  living  when  Matthew  wrote,  and  could  have  de- 
monstrated his  want  of  veracity,  if  these  things  were 
not  so.  Matthew,  moreover,  is  the  only  Evangelist 
who  tells  of  the  sealing  of  the  sepulchre  of  our  Lord, 
and  of  the  setting  of  the  watch.  He  is  the  only 
Evangelist  who  tells  of  the  bribing  of  the  Roman  sol- 
diers to  say  that  the  body  was  stolen  while  they  slept. 
He  is  the  only  Evangelist  who  tells  that  this  story 
"is  commonly  reported  among  the  Jews  until  this 
day,"  viz.,  until  the  time  in  which  he  wrote.  This 
statement,  if  untrue,  was  made  in  the  face  of  the 
direct  knowledge  to  the  contrary,  not  of  two  or  three 
individuals,  but  of  the  whole  Jewish  nation. 

The  boldness  of  Matthew  in  speaking  of  public  and 
notorious  occurrences,  and  the  entire  silence  of  John 
with  respect  to  them,  ought  to  satisfy  the  most  scep- 
tical of  the  honesty  of  the  witnesses. 

But  to  return  to  the  verse  under  consideration. 
The  circumstantiality  of  Mark  is  no  less  noteworthy 
than  that  of  Matthew.  According  to  the  ordinary 
principles  of  human  nature,  we  would  expect  the  Se- 
cretary of  Peter  to  smooth  over  and  soften  down  the 
asperities  of  the  language  of  denial.    On  the  contrary, 


OF   CHRIST.  199 

Mark  gives  it  in  all  its  rough  and  ugly  reality.  He 
does  not  shrink  from  telling  us,  that  Peter  descended 
to  the  bar-room  vulgarity  of  confirming  his  lie  with 
blasphemous  oaths  and  imprecations.  Cursing  and 
swearing,  in  the  mouth  of  Cephas,  the  rock,  the  bold, 
confident  disciple  of  Jesus !  Has  he,  who  so  stoutly 
declared,  "I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  thy  sake," 
resorted  to  the  low  expedient  of  profanity,  to  prove 
that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  immaculate  Son  of  God  ? 
How  little  was  the  boaster  acquainted  with  the  deceit 
and  desperate  wickedness  of  his  own  heart !  How  little 
do  any  of  us  know,  when  not  exposed  to  strong  temp- 
tation, of  the  depths  of  pollution  into  which  we  may 
yet  plunge,  if  not  held  up  by  the  mighty  hand  of 
God. 

"Heaven's  Sovereign  saves  all  beings,  but  himself, 
That  hideous  sight,  a  naked  human  heart." 

If  we  could  but  see  our  own  hearts  as  God  sees  them, 
with  what  horror,  amazement,  and  alarm,  would  we  be 
filled !  Heavenly  Father !  we  would  be  taught  by  the 
fall  of  the  proud  and  self-reliant  Peter,  to  be  very 
humble,  and  to  trust  in  thy  sustaining  grace,  and  not 
in  our  own  feeble  strength.  We  would  deplore  as  the 
greatest  of  evils,  the  being  left  a  single  moment  with- 
out the  guiding,  directing,  and  controlling  influences 
of  thy  Spirit.  Leave  us  not,  neither  forsake  us,  0 
thou  God  of  our  salvation  ! 

The  men  of  blood,  assembled  around  that  fire  in  the 
court  of  the  malignant    Caiaphas,  paid  a  tacit,  but 


200  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

glorious  tribute  to  the  religion  of  Jesus!  It  seems 
that  they  were  satisfied,  by  the  cursing  and  swearing 
of  Peter,  that  he  had  no  connection  with  the  pure  and 
holy  Prisoner,  surrounded  by  his  ruthless  accusers !  It 
would  seem,  too,  that  they  even  let  the  swearer  leave 
the  palace  without  further  molestation,  (verse  62.) 

We  thank  you,  0  ye  haters  of  Jesus,  for  your  im- 
plied acknowledgment  that  a  profane  blusterer  could 
have  nothing  in  common  with  the  holy  Man  of  Naza- 
reth !  Although  burning  with  hellish  malice  against 
Him  who  loved  you  then,  and  loved  you  afterwards, 
even  unto  death — praying  for  you  when  murderous 
hands  were  nailing  him  to  the  cross — yet  by  your  act 
ye  have  confessed  the  excellency  of  his  religion,  since 
ye  took  it  for  granted  that  a  coarse,  vulgar  swearer 
could  not  be  his  disciple !  Just  as  you  judged  then, 
the  world  judges  now,  and  is  ever  ready  to  denounce 
as  hypocrites,  those  professed  followers  of  Christ, 
whose  life  is  not  guileless,  and  whose  conversation  is 
not  free  from  all  impious  expressions.  Strange  that 
the  father  of  lies,  and  his  mendacious  children,  should 
give  such  honest  and  truthful  testimony  to  the  purity 
of  the  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God ! 

49.  On  summing  up  our  evidence,  we  find  a  two- 
fold argument  for  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses — 
first,  the  boldness  of  Matthew  in  giving  circumstantial 
details,  which,  if  untrue,  could  have  been  denied  so 
readily ;  second,  the  honesty  of  Mark  in  telling  of 
the  aggravated  manner  of  the  denial  of  his  friend 
and  teacher. 


OF   CHRIST.  201 

The  61st  verse  is  in  these  words :  "And  the  Lord 
turned,  and  looked  upon  Peter:  and  Peter  remem- 
bered the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  he  said  unto  him, 
Before  the  cock  crow,  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice.  And 
Peter  went  out,  and  wept  bitterly." 

The  parallel  statements  of  Matthew  and  Mark  are 
as  follows:  "And  Peter  remembered  the  word  of 
Jesus,  which  said  unto  him,  Before  the  cock  crow, 
thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice.  And  he  went  out,  and 
wept  bitterly."  (Matthew.)  "And  Peter  called  to 
mind  the  word  that  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Before  the 
cock  crow  twice,  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice.  And 
when  he  thought  thereon,  he  wept."  (Mark.)  John 
is  altogether  silent  with  respect  to  the  repentance  of 
Peter. 

We  remark,  in  the  first  place,  upon  these  several 
accounts,  that  Mark,  who  alone  in  recording  the  pre- 
diction of  Christ,  had  mentioned  two  crowings  of  the 
cock,  and  who  alone  had  told  of  the  first  cock-crow, 
when  Peter  went  out  into  the  porch,  so  is  now  the 
only  Evangelist  who  refers  to  the  fact,  that  the  cock 
did  crow  twice.  We  have  had  occasion  before,  to 
attribute  Mark's  precision  to  his  being  the  Secretary 
of  Peter,  upon  whose  mind  every  circumstance  con- 
nected with  his  denial  must  have  made  an  indelible 
impression.  The  particularity  of  Mark  is  then  easily 
explained;  and  we  think  that  the  omission,  by  the 
other  writers,  of  any  reference  to  the  first  cock-crow, 
is  also  as  readily  accounted  for.  The  second  cock- 
crow was  about  daylight ;  and  the  word  cock-crowing, 


202  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

unless  something  was  especially  stated  to  the  con- 
trary, always  conveyed  to  the  Jew  the  same  idea 
that  the  words  "  dawn  of  day,"  convey  to  us.  When, 
therefore,  the  disciples  heard  our  Lord  predict  the 
defection  of  Peter,  they  caught  at  the  leading  thought, 
namely,  that  in  the  very  night  in  which  Peter  so 
proudly  boasted  of  his  courage  and  love  for  his  Master, 
he  should  deny  him  before  cock-crowing — before  the 
shades  of  darkness  should  have  passed  from  the  earth. 
It  was  this  that  so  forcibly  struck  Matthew  and  John, 
on  hearing  the  prediction,  and  they  therefore  recorded 
it  just  as  they  remembered  it.  It  was  this  that  struck 
so  forcibly  those  from  whom  Luke  derived  his  account, 
and  he  therefore  recorded  it  just  as  he  got  it  from 
them.  The  exceeding  naturalness  of  the  omission  of 
Matthew,  Luke,  and  John,  is  no  mean  proof  of  their 
integrity.  If  the  Evangelists  had  framed  together  a 
fictitious  story,  they  surely  would  have  been  careful 
in  making  their  statements  correspond  in  small,  as 
well  as  important  particulars.  We  can  give  a  plausi- 
ble, and,  we  think,  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
difference  in  their  evidence,  upon  the  hypothesis  of 
their  being  honest  and  reliable  men.  But  we  would 
be  utterly  unable  to  account  for  this  seeming  disagree- 
ment, upon  the  hypothesis  that  they  were  liars  and 
forgers. 

We  remark,  in  the  second  place,  that  Luke  is  the 
only  Evangelist  who  notices  the  tender  look  of  rebuke 
which  Jesus  gave  to  his  erring  disciple.  And  this 
brings  us  back  to  a  position  previously  assumed,  that 


OF   CHRIST.  203 

Luke  is  the  Evangelist  for  the  penitent  sinner,  for  the 
poor,  the  weak,  and  the  friendless.  He  is  the  Evan- 
gelist who  specially  instructs  us  concerning  the  amaz- 
ing mercy  and  forbearance  of  God,  and  the  wonder- 
ful pity  and  compassion  of  his  Son.  He  is  the  Evan- 
gelist who  specially  tells  us  of  God's  tender  regard 
for  those  whom  the  world  thinks  least  deserving  of 
its  notice  and  his  favour.  Thus  he  is  the  only  Evan- 
gelist who  gives  the  parable  of  the  two  debtors,  the 
burden  of  which  is,  that  he  who  has  been  forgiven 
much,  will  also  love  much.  Luke  alone  relates  the 
parable  of  the  good  Samaritan,  which  so  beautifully 
inculcates  the  duty  of  neighbourly  kindness,  and 
which  rebuked  the  pride  of  the  lawyer,  by  showing 
that  the  act  of  mercy  was  not  bestowed  by  the  sancti- 
monious priest,  nor  by  the  Levite  formalist,  but  by 
the  despised  Samaritan.  Luke  alone  gives  the  para- 
ble of  the  importunate  widow,  teaching  that  the  ear- 
nest, persevering  prayer  of  the  most  insignificant,  will 
not  be  made  in  vain.  Luke  and  Matthew  alone  give 
the  parable  of  the  lost  sheep,  the  moral  of  which  is 
the  anxiety  of  the  good  shepherd  for  the  wanderers 
from  his  fold.  Luke  alone  gives  the  parable  of  the 
lost  money,  and  the  prodigal  son ;  the  former,  teach- 
ing the  solicitude  of  God  for  those  of  his  children  who 
have  gone  astray;  the  latter,  the  tenderness  of  his 
pity  for  the  returning  penitent.  Luke  alone  gives 
the  parable  of  the  unjust  steward,  so  often  and  so 
greatly  misunderstood,  the  key  to  which  is  the  ex- 
pression   found    only  in    that   gospel,    "  He    that    is 


204  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

faithful   in  that  which   is   least,   is   faithful  also  in 
much." 

The  lowly,  the  obscure,  the  poor  in  this  world's 
goods,  the  feeble  in  intellect,  are  here  taught  that  the 
faithful  use  of  their  little  gifts  will  not  fail  of  receiv- 
ing its  reward.  Luke  alone  gives  the  parable  of  the 
Pharisee  and  Publican,  which  teaches  God's  abhor- 
rence of  a  proud,  vainglorious,  self-righteous  spirit, 
and  his  acceptance  of  a  true  and  hearty  repentance. 
Luke  alone  gives  the  parable  of  the  pounds,  which 
teaches  the  strictest  accountability  for  even  the  one 
pound  committed  to  our  care,  and  that  the  smallest, 
as  well  as  greatest  gift  from  God  is  but  a  loan,  which 
must  be  improved  for  his  glory.  Luke  and  Matthew 
both  record  the  parable  of  the  supper,  but  it  is  patent 
on  the  face  of  their  respective  accounts,  that  they 
related  it  from  different  motives.  Matthew  narrated 
it  to  teach  the  rejection  of  the  Jews — Luke,  to  show 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  For,  Matthew  mentions 
two  incidents  passed  over  by  Luke,  the  murder  of  the 
king's  servants,  and  the  punishment  of  the  murderers ; 
"  And  the  remnant  took  his  servants  and  entreated 
them  spitefully,  and  slew  them.  But  when  the  king 
heard  thereof,  he  was  wroth:  and  he  sent  forth  his 
armies  and  destroyed  those  murderers,  and  burnt  up 
their  city."  The  parable  was  evidently  introduced 
by  Matthew  as  prophetic  of  the  rejection  of  the  gospel 
by  the  Jews,  their  persecution  of  its  ministers,  and 
of  the  vengeance  taken  upon  them  by  the  King  of 
heaven,  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     Luke  has 


OF   CHRIST.  205 

introduced  the  parable  to  show  that  from  the  streets 
and  lanes  of  the  city,  and  from  the  highways  and 
hedges  of  the  country,  "the  poor,  and  the  maimed, 
and  the  halt,  and  the  blind,"  shall  come  up  to  the 
marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb. 

Luke  alone  gives  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and 
Lazarus,  which  so  impressively  teaches  that  "the 
poor  of  this  world"  may  be  "rich  in  faith,  and  heirs 
of  the  kingdom  which  God  hath  promised  to  them  that 
love  him."  And  if  we  turn  from  the  allegoric  teach- 
ing of  our  Lord  to  his  public  ministry,  we  find  that 
Luke  still  preserves  his  characteristic  as  the  Evan- 
gelist for  the  sinner.  He  still  shows  God's  distin- 
guishing grace  towards  those  whom  the  world  most 
lightly  esteems.  Thus,  Luke  alone  tells  of  the  anger 
excited  by  our  Saviour,  in  his  sermon  at  Nazareth,  by 
showing  that  Elijah  was  sent  to  a  widow  of  Sarepta, 
rather  than  to  the  mothers  in  Israel;  and  that  he 
healed  Naaman,  a  Syrian,  a  stranger,  and  a  natural 
enemy  of  the  Jews,  rather  than  the  lepers  among  his 
own  countrymen.  Thus,  Luke  is  the  only  Evangelist 
who  tells  of  Christ's  gracious  reception  of  the  penitent 
sinner,  who  anointed  his  head  with  ointment,  and 
washed  his  feet  with  her  tears.  The  other  Evangelists 
speak  of  a  different  anointing,  which  was  for  his 
burial;  but  this  was  made,  not  by  a  sinner,  but  by 
the  pure  and  lovely  Mary,  who  had  chosen  that  good 
part,  which  should  not  be  taken  away.  The  sinner's 
Evangelist  speaks  of  the  penitential  offering  of  the 
abandoned  woman,  and  is  silent  with  respect  to  the 
18 


206  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

affectionate  tribute  of  the  saint.  In  his  extracts  from 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Luke,  with  his  character- 
istic contempt  of  the  world's  wealth,  and  the  world's 
favour,  has  given  two  sentences  not  quoted  by  Mat- 
thew: "Woe  unto  you  that  are  rich,  for  ye  have 
received  your  consolation,"  &c.  "  Woe  unto  you  when 
all  men  shall  speak  well  of  you."  So,  Luke  alone 
tells  us  the  story  (we  consider  it  not  a  parable)  of  the 
rich  fool,  who  pulled  down  his  barns  and  built  greater, 
and  said  to  his  soul,  "  Take  thine  ease,  eat,  drink,  and 
be  merry,"  even  when  the  sentence  of  death  had  gone 
forth  from  "the  Judge  of  all  the  earth."  Luke,  in 
like  manner,  is  the  only  Evangelist  who  tells  of 
Christ's  rebuke  of  Martha  for  being  "  cumbered  about 
much  serving."  So,  too,  Luke  alone  records  that 
remarkable  saying  of  our  Lord,  "  That  which  is  highly 
esteemed  among  men,  is  abomination  in  the  sight  of 
God." 

Luke  gives  us  many  instances,  not  noticed  by  the 
other  Evangelists,  of  our  Redeemer's  amazing  for- 
bearance and  long-suffering  with  his  enemies.  Thus, 
he  alone  tells  us  how,  when  James  and  John  wished 
to  call  down  fire  from  heaven,  to  destroy  a  village  of 
the  Samaritans,  which  had  rejected  their  Master  with 
contumely  and  contempt,  they  were  rebuked  by  him 
for  their  revengeful  spirit,  and  were  told  that  "  the 
Son  of  Man  came  not  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to 
save  them."  Thus,  Luke  alone  tells  us  of  his  weep- 
ing over  Jerusalem,  the  city  of  murderers,  the  city 
that   stoned  his  prophets,   rejected  his  gospel,   and 


OF   CHRIST.  207 

thirsted  for  his  blood.  John  tells  us  of  our  blessed 
Saviour  weeping  on  another  occasion ;  but  then  it  was 
over  the  grave  of  his  dead  friend,  Lazarus,  and  not 
over  living,  active,  malignant  foes.  Thus,  Luke  alone 
tells  us  of  his  healing  the  wounded  Malchus,  when  in 
the  very  act  of  laying  violent  hands  upon  his  sacred 
person.  Thus,  Luke  alone  tells  us  of  his  tender,  com- 
passionate address,  on  his  way  to  Calvary,  to  the 
daughters  of  Jerusalem — the  city  which  had  persecuted 
him  to  the  death.  Thus,  Luke  alone  tells  us  of  his 
prayer  for  his  enemies,  even  while  they  were  nailing 
him  to  the  cross.  Thus,  Luke  alone  tells  us  of  his 
pardon  of  the  thief  who  had  broken  his  laws,  and  most 
likely  had  reviled  Himself,  but  a  few  moments  before. 
Thus,  Luke  alone  tells  of  his  appearance,  after  his 
resurrection,  to  the  faithless  Peter,  to  console  him  in 
his  sorrow,  and  strengthen  him  in  his  faith.  Thus, 
Luke  alone  tells  us  of  his  command  to  his  disciples, 
to  begin  their  ministry  at  that  very  Jerusalem  which 
had  shed  his  innocent  blood.  The  offer  of  pardon, 
peace,  holiness,  and  eternal  life  was  first  to  be  made 
to  his  cruel  and  implacable  foes. 

And  besides  these  instances  of  Christ's  forgiveness 
of  injuries,  Luke  tells  us  of  his  many  kind  receptions 
of  sinners,  and  of  those  who  were  looked  upon  with 
contempt  by  the  Jews.  Thus,  Luke  alone  mentions 
the  complaint  of  the  Pharisees,  "  This  man  receiveth 
sinners,  and  eateth  with  them."  Thus,  Luke  alone 
tells  us  of  his  forgiving  the  sins  of  the  degraded 
woman,  who  shed  penitent  tears  so  profusely  in  the 


208  •  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

house  of  Simon.  Thus,  Luke  alone  tells  us  of  his 
kindness  to  Zaccheus,  the  publican  and  the  extor- 
tioner. Thus,  Luke  alone  tells  us  of  his  healing  the 
ten  lepers,  and  that  the  one  whom  he  commended 
was  a  despised  Samaritan.  Luke,  and  Matthew,  and 
Mark,  tell  us  of  that  precious  saying  of  our  Lord, 
"  The  Son  of  man  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but 
sinners  to  repentance."  And  so  these  three  Evan- 
gelists speak  of  the  murmuring  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  when  Christ  ate  with  publicans  and  sinners 
in  the  house  of  Levi.  Luke,  however,  in  noticing  the 
goodness  and  condescension  of  our  Redeemer  to  the 
vilest  of  sinners,  is  careful  to  connect  it  with  the  grace 
of  repentance  on  their  part.  Thus,  the  woman  was 
in  tears,  when  her  sins  were  forgiven.  Zaccheus  had 
resolved  to  make  restitution,  fourfold,  of  all  things 
"taken  by  false  accusation,"  when  Christ  came  to 
his  house.  Levi  had  left  all  to  follow  Jesus,  when  he 
dined  with  him.  The  publicans  and  sinners  there 
assembled,  were  hungering  and  thirsting  for  the 
preached  word.  The  Samaritan,  commended  by 
him,  had  turned  back  to  glorify  God.  The  poor 
publican  was  smiting  upon  his  breast,  and  crying, 
"God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,"  when  the  act  of 
justification  was  passed. 

And  so  we  see  that  repentance  is  a  cardinal  doc- 
trine in  Luke's  theology.  And  we  find  that  he  is 
the  only  Evangelist  who  records  that  fearful  saying 
of  our  Lord,  "Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise 
perish."     And  while  Matthew  teaches  the  unqualified 


OF   CHRIST.  209 

forgiveness  of  the  offending  brother,  Luke  says,  "And 
if  he  trespass  against  thee  seven  times  in  a  day,  and 
seven  times  in  a  day  turn  again  to  thee,  saying, 
I  repent;  thou  shalt  forgive  him."  (Compare  Luke 
xvii.  4,  with  Matt,  xviii.  21,  22.)  Luke  is  the  only 
Evangelist  who  tells  of  the  "joy  in  the  presence  of 
the  angels  of  God  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth;" 
and  this  precious  truth  he  repeats  over  again. 

The  prominence  given  by  Luke  to  repentance,  ex- 
plains the  fact  of  his  being  the  only  Evangelist  to 
notice  Christ's  turning  and  looking  upon  Peter.  It 
is  the  look  of  Jesus  which  strikes  the  key-note  of  the 
penitential  psalm.  It  is  the  tender,  pitying,  loving, 
rebuking  look  of  the  insulted  Son  of  God  which  fills 
the  heart  with  sorrow  for  sin.  "  They  shall  look 
upon  me,  whom  they  have  pierced,  and  they  shall 
mourn."  Nay,  gracious  Saviour,  we  will  look  upon 
thee,  but  we  will  not  mourn,  unless  thou  first  look 
upon  us  with  forgiveness  in  thy  eyes,  and  infinite 
compassion  in  thy  face.  Wretches  that  we  are,  we 
will  stand  around  thy  cross,  0  thou  bleeding  lamb, 
like  thy  murderers,  but  to  mock  and  revile  thee,  unless 
thy  look  of  love  show  us  that  thou  art  enduring  all 
this  agony  for  us. 

"While  I  view  thee,  wounded,  grieving, 
Breathless  on  the  cursed  tree, 
Fain  I'd  feel  my  heart  believing 
That  thou  suffered' st  thus  for  me." 

And  when  we  can  feel  this,  with  what  earnestness 
will  we  sue  for  pardon  and  peace — when  we  can  fee] 

18* 


210  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

that  thy  look  is  full  of  pity  and  tenderness,  and  not 
of  revenge  and  bitterness !     With  tl 
come  with  confidence,  knowing  that, 


of  revenge  and  bitterness !     With  this  belief,  we  can 


"In  the  world  of  endless  ruin, 

Shall  it  never,  Lord,  be  said, 
'Here's  a  soul  that  perished  sueing 

For  the  boasted  Saviour's  aid.' 
Saved!  the  deed  shall  spread  new  glory 

Through  the  shining  realms  above! 
Angels  sing  the  pleasing  story, 

All  enraptured  with  thy  love!" 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  apparent  that 
when  Luke  notices  our  Lord's  looking  upon  Peter, 
he  preserves  his  individuality  as  the  Evangelist  for 
the  sinner,  the  Evangelist  who  shows  the  grace 
of  God  towards  those  whom  the  world  thinks  the 
least  deserving  of  his  favour;  the  Evangelist  who 
gives  special  prominence  to  repentance,  as  an  ex- 
ercise of  heart  which  God  will  not  despise.  The 
beloved  Physician,  as  a  preacher  of  righteousness, 
delighted  in  encouraging  the  weak,  the  humble,  the 
faint-hearted,  the  lightly  esteemed,  the  little  ones  of 
this  world,  by  teaching  that  God  is  no  respecter  of 
persons.  He  delighted  in  inviting  penitent  sinners 
to  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of 
the  world.  Moreover,  Luke,  in  the  touching  sen- 
tence above  ("the  Lord  turned  and  looked  upon 
Peter")  has  preserved  his  individuality  as  a  writer,  as 
well  as  a  preacher.  He  is  distinguished  for  the  terse- 
ness and   conciseness  of  his   style,  and   the  melting 


OF   CHRIST.  211 

tenderness  of  his  periods.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  give 
a  few  examples.  In  his  account  of  the  restoration  to 
life  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain,  (a  miracle  recorded 
by  him  alone,)  he  uses  that  inimitably  pathetic  ex- 
pression, "the  only  son  of  his  mother,  and  she  was  a 
widow."  We  think  that  the  writings  of  ancient  and 
modern  times  will  be  searched  in  vain  to  find  such 
another  single,  brief  sentence,  that  contains  so  much 
of  true  pathos.  We  know  of  nothing  that  will  com- 
pare with  it,  save  David's  wild  outburst  of  grief, 
on  hearing  of  the  death  of  Absalom.  But  there  is 
this  notable  difference;  the  latter  is  the  passionate 
lament  of  the  bereaved  father,  the  other,  the  account 
of  an  uninterested  person.  Pathos  in  the  narrator 
is,  of  course,  more  remarkable  than  in  the  afflicted 
parent. 

A  poet  has  beautifully  paraphrased  the  words,  "  the 
only  son  of  his  mother,  and  she  was  a  widow." 

"She  had  no  kinsmen.     She  had  lived  alone, 
A  widow,  with  one  son.     He  was  her  all — 
The  only  tie  she  had  in  the  wide  world — 
And  he  was  dead!     They  could  not  comfort  her." 

With  respect  to  the  child  of  Jairus,  Luke  is  the 
only  Evangelist  who  tells  us  that  she  was  an  only 
daughter.  What  a  world  of  tender  meaning  in  the 
sentence,  u  one  only  daughter,  and  she  lay  a  dying." 
Matthew  and  Mark  both  mention  the  restoration  of 
the  child  to  life,  but  neither  of  them  notices  the  af- 
fecting fact  of  her  being  an  only  daughter. 

There  is  a  still  deeper  and  more  thrilling  pathos  in 


212  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

the  address  of  the  father,  whose  son  was  possessed 
with  a  devil.  "Master,  I  beseech  thee,  look  upon  my 
son,  for  he  is  mine  only  child."  One  only  child, 
under  the  dominion  of  the  powers  of  darkness !  0 
how  often  has  the  distressed  father  and  the  agonized 
mother  cried  out  for  the  ungodly,  only  child,  "Mas- 
ter, I  beseech  thee,  look  upon  my  son ;  for  this,  mine 
only  child,  is  sold  to  sin,  to  Satan,  and  to  eternal 
death!" 

Matthew  and  Mark  both  mention  the  healing  of 
the  son  possessed  with  a  devil,  but  neither  of  them 
notices  that  which  gives  such  heart-rending  emphasis 
to  the  appeal  of  the  father.  How  tame  is  the  lan- 
guage of  Mark  in  comparison  with  that  of  Luke; 
"And  one  of  the  multitude  answered,  and  said,  Mas- 
ter, I  have  brought  unto  thee,  my  son,  which  hath  a 
dumb  spirit." 

The  moving  lament  of  our  Saviour  over  Jerusalem, 
is  given  by  Luke  and  Matthew  alone.  "  0  Jerusa- 
lem, Jerusalem,  which  killest  the  prophets,  and  stonest 
them  that  are  sent  unto  thee;  how  often  would  I 
have  gathered  thy  children  together,  as  a  hen  doth 
gather  her  brood  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would 
not !"  Nor  yet  do  the  other  Evangelists  mention  that 
last  lament,  when  his  murderers  had  almost  gotten 
their  victim  within  their  toils:  "And  when  he  was 
come  near,  he  beheld  the  city  and  wept  over  it,  say- 
ing, If  thou  hadst  known,  even  thou  at  least,  in  this 
thy  day,  the  things  which  belong  unto  thy  peace ! 
But  now  they  are  hid  from  thine  eyes."     What  an 


OF   CHRIST.  213 

exalted  view  does  the  lamentation  of  our  Saviour,  at 
such  a  time,  give  of  his  generous,  unselfish  love ! 

"He  thought  not  of  the  death  that  he  should  die; 
He  thought  not  of  the  thorns  he  knew  must  pierce 
His  forehead — of  the  buffet  on  the  cheek — 
The  scourge,  the  mocking  homage,  the  foul  scorn. 

And  Golgotha 

Stood  bare  and  desert  by  the  city  wall, 

And  in  its  midst,  to  his  prophetic  eye, 

Rose  the  rough  cross,  and  its  keen  agonies 

Were  numbered  all — the  nails  "were  in  his  feet, 

The  insulting  sponge  was  pressing  on  his  lips — 

The  blood  and  water  gushing  from  his  side — 

The  dizzy  faintness  swimming  in  his  brain — 

And  while  his  own  disciples  fled  in  fear, 

A  world's  death-agonies  all  mixed  in  his! 

Ay — he  forgot  all  this.     He  only  saw 

Jerusalem — the  chosen,  the  loved,  the  lost ! 

He  only  felt  that  for  her  sake  his  life 

Was  vainly  given ;  and,  in  his  pitying  love, 

The  sufferings  that  would  clothe  the  heavens  in  black 

Were  quite  forgotten.     Was  there  ever  love, 

In  earth  or  heaven,  equal  unto  this?" 

And  this  is  the  love  that  sinners — this  is  the  love 
that  fools  make  a  mock  at !  0  thou,  who  prayedst 
over  murderous  Jerusalem,  still  intercede  for  our 
ruined  race. 

A  few  examples  will  illustrate  the  comprehensive 
brevity  of  Luke's  style.  "Remember  Lot's  wife." 
"Occupy  till  I  come."  "The  Lord  hath  need  of 
him."  "Jesus,  Master,  have  mercy  on  us."  "Lord, 
that  I  may  receive  my  sight."  "Increase  our  faith." 
"God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner."     "But  even  the 


214  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered."  "Glory 
to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  and  good 
will  toward  men."  "But  wisdom  is  justified  of 
her  children."  "We  have  seen  strange  things  to- 
day," &c.  Besides,  there  are  little,  delicate  touches 
to  be  found  in  Luke,  and  in  no  other  Evangelist.  In 
the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan,  this  is  exhibited  in 
the  answer  of  the  lawyer,  "  He  that  showed  mercy  on 
him."  The  Jewish  prejudices  of  the  bigot  would  not 
permit  him  to  name  the  Samaritan ;  he  therefore  ex- 
pressed himself  in  that  indirect  manner.  The  answer 
of  Christ,  "  Go  thou,  and  do  likewise,"  is  one  of  those 
concise  speeches  which  Luke  delighted  to  record.  In 
the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  we  have  also  exhibited 
those  nice  discriminations  which  Luke  was  so  fond  of 
noticing.  The  indignant  elder  brother,  in  his  angry 
talk  with  his  father,  does  not  claim  relationship  with 
the  prodigal,  but  reproachfully  designates  him  to  the 
rejoicing  parent  as  "this  thy  son."  The  old  man,  by 
his  reply,  gently  reproves  this  unnatural  feeling,  "for 
this  thy  brother  was  dead,  and  is  alive  again ;  and  was 
lost,  and  is  found." 

We  see  then,  that  Luke,  in  being  the  only  Evan- 
gelist to  record  the  fact  that  "  the  Lord  turned  and 
looked  upon  Peter,"  has  preserved  his  individuality, 
both  as  a  man  and  as  a  writer.  As  a  man,  he  is  more 
prone  than  the  other  Evangelists  to  notice  the  favour 
of  Christ  to  even  the  chief  of  sinners.  As  a  writer, 
he  abounds  in  pathetic  incidents,  and  in  concise  and 
sententious    expressions.      We   furthermore    observe, 


OF   CHRIST.  215 

that  the  omission  of  John  to  mention  the  penitence  of 
Peter,  is  no  less  characteristic.  John  is  the  Evangel- 
ist for  the  believer.  He  writes  to  establish  him  in  the 
faith  of  the  divinity  of  his  adorable  Redeemer.  He 
writes  to  point  the  thirsting  disciple  to  Jesus  as  the 
fountain  of  living  water,  so  that  whosoever  drinketh 
of  him  shall  never  thirst  again.  He  writes  to  point 
the  hungering  disciple  to  Jesus  as  the  bread  of  life, 
that  came  down  from  heaven:  "I  am  the  living  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven.  If  any  man  eat  of 
this  bread,  he  shall  live  for  ever :  and  the  bread  that 
I  will  give  him  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the 
life  of  the  world."  He  writes  to  strengthen  the  weak, 
to  comfort  and  console  the  discouraged  and  despond- 
ing believer:  "Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled:  ye 
believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  me."  "Peace  I  leave 
with  you ;  my  peace  I  give  unto  you :  not  as  the  world 
giveth  give  I  unto  you."  He  writes  to  teach  the 
believer  that  his  union  must  be  close  with  Christ:  "I 
am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches.  He  that  abideth 
in  me,  and  I  in  him,  the  same  bringeth  forth  much 
fruit :  for  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  He  writes 
to  stimulate  the  love  of  the  child  of  God:  "As  the 
Father  hath  loved  me,  so  have  I  loved  you :  continue 
ye  in  my  love.  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye 
shall  abide  in  my  love;  even  as  I  have  kept  my 
Father's  commandments,  and  abicft  in  his  love.  .  .  . 
Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay 
down  his  life  for  his  friends." 

Love  for  Jesus,  belief  and  trust  in  him,  are  the 


216  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

alpha  and  omega  of  John's  theology.  He,  with  his 
gentle,  loving,  inoffensive  disposition,  knew  nothing 
of  the  rude,  rough  transgressor's  agony  of  remorse. 
And  so,  too,  he  knew  nothing  of  the  sweetness  of  for- 
giveness, in  comparison  with  the  bold  sinner  who  had 
been  pardoned.  And  so  we  find,  that  the  words 
repent,  and  repentance,  are  not  to  be  found  in  his 
Gospel.  Neither  are  the  words  forgive,  and  forgive- 
ness, to  be  found  there.  But  the  word  believe,  and  its 
derivatives,  occur  five  times  as  often  in  his  Gospel, 
as  in  the  gospels  of  the  other  three  Evangelists  com- 
bined. John's  heart,  like  Lydia's,  was  gently  opened 
to  receive  the  truth.  He  was  a  stranger  to  gross  and 
outrageous  sins,  and  therefore  a  stranger  also  to  the 
pangs  of  anguish,  felt  by  desperate  offenders,  when 
pierced  by  the  arrows  of  the  Spirit.  As  he  was  inca- 
pable of  committing  Peter's  offence,  so  he  was  incapa- 
ble of  understanding  the  depth  and  intensity  of  Peter's 
sorrow.  He  has  therefore  omitted  all  mention  of  the 
bitter  tears  shed  by  the  penitent  disciple.  Had  John 
ever  experienced  similar  suffering,  he  could  not  have 
passed  over  in  silence  the  remorse  of  poor  Peter.  But 
the  simplicity  and  guilelessness  of  character  of  the 
beloved  disciple  had  preserved  him  from  great  crimes, 
and  therefore  he  knew  but  little  of  the  sting  of  a 
guilty  conscience — that  sting  which  gives  a  foretaste 
of  the  poisonous  ftng  of  the  worm  that  never  dies. 
The  exceeding  naturalness  of  John's  omission  to  make 
mention  of  the  repentance  of  Peter,  is  strong  proof 
of  the  authenticity  of  his   Gospel.     We  think  that 


OF   CHRIST.  217 

the  internal  evidence  furnished  by  this  one  circum- 
stance, is  sufficient  to  establish  his  integrity  as  a 
witness. 

Moreover,  the  turning  of  Jesus  to  look  upon  his 
erring  disciple  was  eminently  characteristic.  It  was 
so  like  the  forgiving,  compassionate  Redeemer,  to  try 
to  recall  Peter  to  a  sense  of  duty.  It  was  so  like 
Him,  who,  "having  loved  his  own,  loved  them  to 
the  end,"  still  to  feel  a  tender  interest  in  the  once 
faithful,  and  well-beloved  follower.  It  was  so  like 
Him,  who  wept  over  the  city  of  his  enemies,  and  prayed 
for  his  murderers,  to  pity  and  forgive  the  man  who 
had  denied  him  with  oaths  and  execrations.  It  was 
was  so  like  the  Lamb  of  God,  to  rebuke  with  a  look 
of  love,  rather  than  with  words  of  harshness. 

50.  On  summing  up  our  evidence,  it  appears  that 
the  61st  verse  affords  a  four-fold  argument  for  the 
credibility  of  the  witnesses;  first,  the  preservation 
of  Luke's  individuality  as  the  Evangelist  for  the  sin- 
ner ;  second,  the  preservation  of  his  individuality,  as 
a  writer;  third,  the  naturalness  of  the  omission  by 
John  of  all  allusion  to  the  penitence  of  Peter ;  fourth, 
the  characteristic  incident  of  the  Lord's  turning  and 
looking  upon  Peter. 

Before  leaving  this  subject,  it  may  be  well  to  call 
attention  to  that  species  of  harmony,  to  which  the 
term  "fitness  of  things"  has  been  applied.  We  have 
seen  how  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  alone  record  the 
boast  of  James  and  John,  that  they  were  able  to  be 
baptized  with  the  same  fiery  baptism  as  their  Master, 
19 


218  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

alone  show  that  these  boastful  disciples  could  not 
watch  a  single  hour.  And  so,  too,  with  respect  to 
the  braggart  Peter,  who  also  yielded  to  drowsiness, 
and  left  the  Master  he  professed  to  love  so  dearly,  to 
struggle  alone  with  the  powers  of  darkness.  Matthew 
and  Mark,  who  alone  give,  in  all  its  boldness,  the 
self-laudatory  speech  of  Peter,  alone  tell  of  his  sleep- 
ing during  the  agony  in  the  garden.  And  now  we 
find  that  these  same  Evangelists  alone  tell  of  his  pro- 
fanity, they  alone  tell  of  the  depth  of  degradation  to 
which  the  vainglorious  disciple  sank. 

In  all  this,  there  is  a  fitness  of  things,  an  obvious 
propriety,  and  a  harmony  with  the  whole  scope  of  the 
Scriptures.  And  so  also  there  is  a  fitness  of  things, 
in  the  omission  of  John,  to  notice  the  repentance  of 
Peter.  Certainly,  it  was  more  fit  that  John  should 
make  the  omission,  than  for  the  other  three  Evange- 
lists to  make  it.  The  first  two  could  not  do  so, 
because  they  had  told  of  the  aggravated  circumstances 
of  the  denial.  Luke  could  not  do  so  without  a  change 
in  his  idiosyncrasy,  in  his  whole  temper  of  mind  and 
heart.  By  attention  to  this  fitness  of  things  in  the 
gospel  narratives,  we  could  have  prejudged  that  John 
alone  could,  with  any  propriety,  omit  to  notice  the 
repentance  of  Peter. 

The  62d  verse  is  in  these  words :  "And  Peter  went 
out  and  wept  bitterly." 

Matthew  and  Mark  agree  substantially  with  Luke, 
in  their  account  of  the  sorrow  exhibited  by  the  peni- 
tent disciple.     Matthew  says,  "And  he  went  out,  and 


OF   CHRIST.  219 

wept  bitterly."     Mark  says,  "And  when  he  thought 
thereon,  he  wept." 

We  remark  upon  these  respective  statements,  that 
Luke  and  Matthew  use  exactly  the  same  words.  Our 
translators  have  made  a  little  difference,  but  there  is 
none  in  the  original,  except  that  Luke  repeats  the 
name  Peter  for  the  third  time,  and  that  Matthew 
omits  the  nominative  to  the  verb  wept. 

According  to  our  English  version,  Mark  says 
nothing  either  of  Peter's  going  out,  or  of  the  bitter- 
ness of  his  weeping.  There  is  a  word,  however,  in 
the  original,  which  expresses  both  these  ideas.  It  is 
a  participle,  and  signifies  "throwing  over,"  or  "cast- 
ing upon,"  but  the  translators  of  King  James's  Bible 
have  rendered  it,  "when  he  thought  thereon."  They 
supposed  that  it  was  used  figuratively  in  this  place, 
and  applied  to  mental  operations ;  meaning,  therefore, 
revolving  the  matter  in  the  mind,  casting  the  thoughts 
upon  it,  &c.  We  have,  however,  as  much  right  to 
suppose  that  the  word  refers  to  bodily  actions,  as  to 
mental  emotions ;  and  some  of  the  most  eminent  and 
judicious  critics  have  put  this  construction  upon  it. 
Doctor  Doddridge  has  rendered  it  "covering  his  head 
with  his  mantle."  His  paraphrase  of  Mark  reads 
thus:  "Peter,  covering  his  head  with  his  mantle, 
seriously  reviewed  that  heinous  crime,  in  which  he 
had  discovered  so  much  weakness  and  ingratitude, 
&c."  The  Doctor  gives,  in  support  of  his  interpreta- 
tion, the  authority  of  the  celebrated  Polish  theologian, 
Eisner,  and  distinctly  states  that  no  passage  in  anti- 


220  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

quity  will  warrant  the  translation  of  the  word  epiba- 
lon,  "when  he  thought  thereon."  The  rendering  of 
Doddridge  was  first  suggested  by  Theophylact,  and 
aftewards  defended  by  Salmasius,  so  distinguished  as 
a  critic,  commentator,  orientalist,  and  archaeologist. 
We  cordially  adopt  this  translation,  because  it  gives 
the  most  perfect  harmony  between  the  several  accounts 
respecting  Peter's  repentance.  Observe,  that  though 
Matthew  and  Luke  tell  us  that  Peter  wept  bitterly, 
they  are  careful  to  tell  us  that  he  first  went  out  of  the 
palace,  before  he  gave  vent  to  his  tears.  He  was 
deeply  and  truly  sorry;  but  with  the  same  concern 
for  his  personal  safety,  which  he  had  exhibited  all 
through  that  memorable  night,  he  desired  to  conceal 
his  emotion,  lest  it  should  betray  him  to  death. 

It  is  plain  that  the  exposition  of  Theophylact  en- 
tirely reconciles  the  seeming  difference  between  Mark 
and  the  other  two  Evangelists.  We  see  that  Mark 
tells  of  the  same  depth  and  bitterness  of  grief,  accom- 
panied by  the  same  concern  for  security  from  danger. 
The  muffling  of  the  face,  to  hide  the  agitated  features, 
manifested  fear;  and  the  necessity  for  covering  the 
head,  showed  that  no  common  emotion  was  disturbing 
the  soul  of  Peter.  Matthew  and  Luke  inform  us  of 
the  unmanly  caution  of  Peter,  by  saying  that  he  went 
out  before  he  wept.  They  inform  us  of  the  intensity 
of  his  suffering,  by  saying  that  he  wept  bitterly, 
(pikros.)  Mark  expresses  both  these  things,  by  the 
two  words,  "he  wept,  covering  his  face,"  (epibalon 
eklaie.) 


OF   CHRIST.  221 

We  are  far  from  contending  that  the  explanation 
afforded  above  is  right,  and  that  all  other  explanations 
are  wrong  ;  but  we  do  contend,  that  by  it  we  reconcile 
a  seeming  difference,  and  this  is  all  we  are  bound  to 
do  in  the  way  of  proving  the  credibility  of  the  wit- 
nesses. It  will  not  answer  for  infidelity  to  say,  that 
a  different  exposition  has  been  given  to  the  passage  in 
Mark.  If  there  were  ten  thousand  different  exposi- 
tions, which  harmonized  the  several  accounts  of  the 
Evangelists,  so  much  the  worse  for  unbelief.  The 
great  truth  cannot  be  too  much  insisted  upon,  that 
the  burden  of  proof  lies  upon  the  objector  to  revela- 
tion. It  is  for  the  opposing  counsel  to  prove  the  want 
of  veracity  of  the  witnesses,  by  showing  that  their 
testimony  conflicts  in  an  irreconcilable  manner.  The 
presumption  is  ever  in  favour  of  the  truthfulness  of 
the  witnesses.  It  rests  upon  infidelity  to  demonstrate 
the  falsehood  of  the  Evangelists,  and  not  upon  Chris- 
tianity to  prove  their  truth.  .  We  have  allowed  the 
adversaries  of  our  holy  religion  to  occupy  the  vantage 
ground.  Ours  is  not  a  position  of  defence,  but  one 
of  attack.  The  alleged  discrepancies  ought  never  to 
have  been  placed  behind  intrenchments  for  protection, 
but  ought  to  have  been  thrown,  in  massive  columns 
of  assault,  upon  the  ranks  of  the  enemy.  The  leaders 
of  the  cohorts  of  truth  have  made  a  fatal  mistake  in 
the  disposition  of  their  forces.  The  command  of  the 
Captain  of  our  Salvation  is,  "  Go  into  all  the  world," 
not,  "Stand  still  in  one  place."  He  never  intended 
his  troops  to  remain  passive  in  their  squares,  like  the 
19* 


222  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

British  at  Waterloo;  on  the  contrary,  his  positive 
command  to  them  is,  to  charge  with  resistless  impetu- 
osity upon  the  masses  of  the  adversary. 

51.  However  the  unbeliever  may  be  disposed  to 
charge  Luke  with  having  copied  from  Matthew,  he 
cannot  charge  Mark  with  the  same  offence.  Mark's 
statement  bears  as  strong  internal  evidence  of  genuine- 
ness and  independence,  as  the  greatest  caviler  could 
demand ;  and  as  it  has  been  found,  upon  examination, 
to  be  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  statements  of  the 
other  two  witnesses,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that 
all  three  accounts  are  true, 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    CHARACTER    OF   PETER. 

We  think  that  there  has  been,  and  still  is,  a  great 
misconception  of  the  character  of  Peter.  He  has  been 
regarded  as  preeminently  courageous — the  boldest 
apostle,  and  even  the  boldest  disciple  of  the  age  in 
in  which  he  lived.  Da  Vinci,  in  his  picture  of  the 
Last  Supper,  gave  Peter  a  lion-like  aspect,  resolute 
yet  calm,  firm  yet  quiet,  in  the  consciousness  of  power 
and  courage.  West  has  made  a  similar  portrait,  in 
his  Christ  Healing  The  Sick.  How  strange  it  is,  that 
such  a  representation  should  be  made  of  the  most 
nervous   and   excitable    of  men.     From   the   notion 


OF   CHRIST.  223 

about  his  valour,  has  arisen  that  other  notion  about 
his  bellicose  propensities.  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason  once  said, 
that  "  the  grace  which  would  make  John  look  like  an 
angel,  would  be  scarcely  sufficient  to  keep  Peter  from 
knocking  down  the  next  passer-by."  What  an  opin- 
ion to  entertain  of  a  man,  the  whole  of  whose  warlike 
exploits,  so  far  as  we  know,  consisted  in  striking  a 
servant,  and  then  running  away ! 

The  Scriptures  describe  men  just  as  they  are, 
with  all  their  blemishes  and  imperfections.  They 
depict  no  mythical  heroes,  no  sinless  saints.  If  we 
turn  to  them  for  the  portrait  of  Peter,  we  will  find  it 
very  different  from  that  which  fancy  has  limned.  He 
is  represented  as  ardent  in  his  temperament,  yet  sin- 
gularly cautious;  excitable  and  impetuous,  yet  timid 
and  wary ;  prompt  to  declare  the  truth,  yet  fickle  and 
inconstant  in  maintaining  it ;  warmly  attached  to  his 
Master,  but  still  more  regardful  of  self;  deeply  peni- 
tent for  his  faults,  yet  ever  prone  to  relapse  into  sin ; 
full  of  reverential  feeling,  yet  savouring  the  things 
that  be  of  men,  more  than  the  things  that  be  of  God. 
His  character  was  made  up  of  the  most  opposite  ele- 
ments of  strength  and  weakness,  courage  and  coward- 
ice, fiery  zeal  and  womanish  prudence,  love  to  Christ 
and  pitiful  selfishness.  The  first  account  that  we  have 
of  him,  is  from  the  pen  of  Luke,  and  it  is  just  as 
characteristic  of  the  writer  as  of  him  he  describes. 
Peter  and  his  partners,  after  toiling  all  night,  and 
catching  no  fish,  were  induced  by  our  Saviour  to  let 
down  their  nets  for  another  trial.     "And  when  they 


224  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

had  this  clone,  they  inclosed  a  great  multitude  of 
fishes :  and  their  net  brake.  And  they  beckoned  unto 
their  partners,  which  were  in  the  other  ship,  that  they 
should  come  and  help  them.  And  they  came,  and  filled 
both  the  ships,  so  that  they  began  to  sink.  When 
Simon  Peter  saw  it,  he  fell  down  at  Jesus'  knees,  say- 
ing, Depart  from  me ;  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  0  Lord." 
This  extract  clearly  manifests  the  excitable  nature 
of  Peter.  Astonishment  at  the  miraculous  draught 
of  fishes,  and  alarm  on  account  of  the  sinking  condi- 
tion of  his  ship,  fill  him  with  awe  for  Christ,  and  with 
a  deep  sense  of  his  unworthiness,  and  operate  so  pow- 
erfully on  his  nervous  temperament  as  to  induce  him 
to  make  the  rash  request,  "Depart  from  me,  0 
Lord." 

The  next  occasion  of  special  notice  of  Peter,  was 
when  Christ  came  walking  on  the  water  to  the  disci- 
ples in  a  ship,  tossed  with  waves,  at  the  fourth  watch 
of  the  night.  They  were  frightened,  supposing  that 
they  saw  a  spirit,  "but  straightway  Jesus  spake  unto 
them,  saying,  Be  of  good  cheer;  it  is  I;  be  not  afraid. 
And  Peter  answered  him,  and  said,  Lord,  if  it  be 
thou,  bid  me  come  unto  thee  on  the  water.  And  he 
said,  Come.  And  when  Peter  was  come  down  out  of 
the  ship,  he  walked  on  the  water,  to  go  to  Jesus. 
But  when  he  saw  the  wind  boisterous,  he  was  afraid ; 
and  beginning  to  sink,  he  cried,  saying,  Lord,  save 
me."  And  so  we  think  it  ever  was  with  Peter,  though 
impetuous  enough  to  undertake  anything,  yet  when- 
ever he  noticed  the  boisterousness  of  the  wind,  the 


OF   CHRIST.  225 

danger  besetting  him,  he  became  afraid.  True,  when 
specially  sustained,  he  did,  at  times,  rise  superior  to 
his  natural  timidity,  and  witness  a  good  confession ; 
then,  however,  it  was  not  Peter,  but  the  grace  of  God 
which  was  with  him.  We  next  find  him  making  a 
noble  answer  to  the  question,  "Whom  say  ye  that  I 
am?  And  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  Our  Saviour 
commended  him  for  his  confession,  and  most  likely  at 
this  time  gave  him  the  surname  Peter.  The  praise 
of  his  Master  elated  the  weak  disciple,  just  as  praise 
always  elates  men  of  weak  natures,  and  filled  him 
with  so  much  confidence,  that  he  presumed  to  rebuke 
our  Saviour  when  he  spoke  of  his  sufferings  and  death. 
"  Then  Peter  took  him  and  began  to  rebuke  him, 
saying,  Be  it  far  from  thee,  Lord;  this  shall  not  be 
unto  thee.  But  he  turned,  and  said  unto  Peter,  Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan ;  thou  art  an  offence  unto  me : 
for  thou  savourest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but 
those  that  be  of  men."  Here  is  a  description  of 
Peter  by  one  who  knew  him  altogether.  He  is  charged 
with  savouring  the  things  that  be  of  men,  with  valu- 
ing too  highly  the  opinions  and  authority  of  his 
fellow-worms  of  the  dust.  The  fear  of  man  was  a 
snare  to  his  feet.  The  next  notice  that  we  have  of 
him,  clearly  shows  this.  When  at  Capernaum,  the 
receivers  of  tribute  came  to  him,  and  said,  "Doth 
not  your  Master  pay  tribute?"  Instead  of  claiming 
exemption  for  his  Master,  as  Lord  of  the  temple,  to 
whose  service  the  tax  was  to  be  appropriated,  Peter 


226  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

answered,  "Yes."  For  thus  fearing  public  opinion, 
he  was  rebuked  by  our  Saviour,  who  complied  with 
the  demand,  but  under  protest  against  it. 

Self  is  very  prominent  in  the  next  notice  we  have 
of  Peter :  "  Then  answered  Peter,  and  said  unto  him, 
Behold,  we  have  forsaken  all,  and  followed  thee: 
what  shall  ive  have  therefore  f"  Here  is  love  to  Christ 
united  to  a  keen  regard  for  personal  interest.  Here 
is  just  the  spirit  of  boastfulness  which  exhibited  itself 
in  a  claim  of  superior  attachment  at  the  last  supper, 
and  failed  in  the  trial  at  Gethsemane.  It  is  just  the 
same  spirit  which  prompted  to  strike  one  blow  for  the 
Master,  and  to  put  forth  mighty  exertion  in  flight  for 
self.  It  is  just  the  same  spirit  of  generous  sacrifice 
and  selfish  anxiety,  which  induced  to  risk  life  in  fol- 
lowing the  Saviour,  and  diminished  the  risk  by  follow- 
ing afar  off.  It  is  just  the  same  spirit  which  impelled 
to  the  gateway  of  the  high-priest's  palace,  and  filled 
with  the  fear  of  entering.  It  is  just  the  same  spirit 
which  led  to  concern  "to  see  the  end,"  and  prompted 
to  the  denial  of  Him  about  whom  so  much  solicitude 
was  felt.  It  is  just  the  same  spirit  which  moved  to 
tears  of  penitence,  and  to  the  concealment  of  those 
tears. 

We  have  two  other  instances  on  record,  which 
exhibit  the  impulsiveness  of  Peter.  The  first,  when 
Mary  Magdalene  made  her  report  of  the  vision  of 
angels  to  him  and  to  John.  He  then  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  to  go  forth,  and  run  to  the  sepulchre. 
His  reaching  there  after  John,  may  have  been  as  much 


OF   CHRIST.  227 

due  to  the  waning  of  his  fickle  zeal,  as  to  his  greater 
age.  The  second  occasion  was  when  Jesus  appeared 
on  the  shore  of  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  while  seven  of  his 
disciples  were  fishing.  It  is  an  impressive  fact,  that 
the  eyes  of  love  first  recognized  the  Saviour.  The 
loving  and  beloved  disciple  first  exclaimed,  "  It  is  the 
Lord."  "Now  when  Simon  Peter  heard  that  it  was 
the  Lord,  he  girt  his  fisher's  coat  unto  him,  (for  he 
was  naked,)  and  did  cast  himself  into  the  sea."  The 
act  was  eminently  characteristic  of  the  ardent  and 
impetuous  apostle.  An  old  fisherman  had  little  danger 
to  apprehend  from  casting  himself  into  the  sea;  other- 
wise the  more  prudential  elements  of  his  character 
might  have  been  displayed. 

The  courage  manifested  by  Peter  after  the  resur- 
rection of  our  Lord,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  on  the 
occasion  of  healing  the  lame  man,  on  trial  before 
Annas  and  Caiaphas,  and  all  the  kindred  of  the  high- 
priest,  by  no  means  proves  that  he  was  constitution- 
ally brave.  We  must  not  forget  how  much  remorse 
he  had  suffered  for  his  cowardice  in  denying  his 
Master;  above  all,  we  must  not  forget  how  he  had 
been  strengthened  by  many  precious  interviews  with 
his  risen  Saviour. 

Astronomy  teaches  us,  that  as  the  planets  revolving 
in  their  orbits  approach  the  sun,  they  receive  an 
acceleration  to  their  velocity;  and  this  impulse  car- 
ries them  to  the  farthest  point  of  their  paths,  and 
brings  them  back  again  for  a  new  increment  of  motion. 
And  so  it  is  with  the  child  of  God;  when  he  draws 


228  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

near  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  glorious  Sun  of  Righteous- 
ness, he  receives  new  zeal,  new  energy,  new  courage 
for  the  journey  of  life;  and  the  fresh  impetus  thus 
given,  carries  him  safely  through  that  point  in  his 
secular  avocations,  the  most  remote  from  the  influence 
of  the  central  luminary,  and  brings  him  back  again 
for  fresh  supplies  of  grace  and  strength.  And  just 
so  it  was  with  Peter — the  point  at  which  he  was  most 
likely  to  swerve  from  the  path  of  rectitude,  was  where 
lay  bodily  danger  to  himself.  But  access  to  his  risen 
Lord  invigorated  him,  fortified  his  heart,  carried  him 
safely  over  the  critical  point,  and  brought  him  back 
once  more. 

The  express  declarations  of  the  inspired  writer  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  confirm  the  view  that  we 
have  given.  We  are  explicitly  told,  that  all  the  dis- 
ciples were  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  And  so,  too,  we  are  told,  that  Peter  was 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  when  he  so  boldly  addressed 
uthe  rulers  of  the  people  and  elders  of  Israel."  His 
courage  at  this  time  was  therefore  supernatural,  and 
proves  nothing  as  to  native  boldness.  And  so  thought 
the  persons  addressed;  for  "when  they  saw  the  bold- 
ness of  Peter  and  John,  and  perceived  that  they  were 
unlearned  and  ignorant  men,  they  marvelled;  and 
they  took  knowledge  of  them,  that  they  had  been  with 
Jesus."  The  fearlessness  of  Peter  was  attributed  to 
the  true  cause.  It  was  not  inborn  valour,  the  natural 
inheritance  of  the  brave  man,  but  the  courage  inspired 
by  having  been  with  Jesus.     It  was  the  same  sort  of 


OF   CHRIST.  229 

contempt  of   danger  and  death,  often   exhibited  by 
the  most  timid  females,  in  times  of  fiery  persecution. 

The  difficulty  with  which  Peter  was  persuaded  to 
go  to  the  house  of  Cornelius,  shows  how  much  he 
feared  the  opinions  and  prejudices  of  his  countrymen, 
the  Jews.  And  this  unmanly  fear  seems  never  to 
have  left  him;  for,  the  very  last  account  we  have 
of  him,  tells  of  a  rebuke  that  he  received  from  Paul 
for  being  afraid  to  eat  with  the  Gentiles  in  the  pre- 
sence of  his  brethren  from  Jerusalem.  "But  when 
Peter  was  come  to  Antioch,"  (says  Paul,)  "  I  with- 
stood him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed. 
For,  before  that  certain  came  from  James,  he  did  eat 
with  the  Gentiles;  but  when  they  were  come,  he 
withdrew,  and  separated  himself,  fearing  them  which 
were  of  the  circumcision." 

52.  We  have  now  seen  that  the  portraits  of  Peter, 
from  the  hands  of  four  different  artists,  bear  the  most 
exact  resemblance  to  one  another,  and  to  the  man 
himself.  And  yet  Peter  was  not  a  person  whose  like- 
ness was  easily  taken.  Of  all  who  have  lived  upon 
earth,  there  probably  has  not  been  another  more  diffi- 
cult subject  for  a  picture.  His  features  played  with 
the  most  opposite  emotions ;  his  eyes  sparkled  alter- 
nately with  love  and  hate,  courage  and  cowardice; 
his  complexion  was  as  variable  as  the  changing  hues 
of  the  evening  sky.  We  can  only  account  for  the 
life-likeness  of  the  portraits  under  these  circumstances, 
by  supposing  that  pencil  and  brush  were  guided  by 
the  unerring  skill  of  the  great  Artist  of  Nature. 
20 


230  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

Our  adversaries  are  fond  of  flouting  us  with  the 
discrepancies  of  the  Gospels;  let  us  bring  home  to 
them  the  consistencies  in  the  representation  of  Peter's 
character.  We  must  not  stand  on  the  defensive,  we 
must  wage  a  close  aggressive  warfare.  When  the 
fleet  of  Nelson  was  bearing  down  upon  the  enemy, 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Nile,  that  gallant  sailor  cried 
out  to  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  signals,  "What 
signal  have  you  flying?"  "Close  action,  my  Lord." 
"Keep  it  so,  sir,  to  the  last."  Let  "close  action" 
be  the  signal  of  the  soldiers  of  the  cross,  and  let  it 
be  kept  so  to  the  last ;  a  victory  equally  as  decisive, 
and  infinitely  more  glorious  than  that  of  the  Nile,  will 
be  their  reward.  The  closeness  of  the  action,  and  the 
heaviness  of  the  firing,  would  serve  too  to  bring  out 
many  friends,  who  now  listen  with  cool  indifference  to 
the  distant  booming  of  the  defensive  cannonade. 

The  intrepid  General  Medows  was  not  present  at 
the  commencement  of  the  battle  of  Seringapatam ; 
but  Lord  Cornwallis  knew  his  man  so  well,  that  he 
exclaimed,  when  the  action  grew  close  and  hot,  "If 
Medows  is  above  ground,  this  firing  will  bring  him 
out."  Christian  warriors!  if  ye  were  more  in  ear- 
nest, if  ye  pressed  more  closely  and  vigorously  upon 
the  foes  of  the  Captain  of  your  salvation,  your  firing 
would  bring  out  all  who  were  above  ground,  all  who 
were  not  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.  You  have  the 
noblest  of  causes,  the  greatest  of  leaders,  the  best  of 
equipments,  the  most  powerful  of  armaments;  aban- 
don then  your  intrenched  position,  and  seek  the  enemy 


OF   CHRIST.  231 

in  the  plain.  You  may  have  thought,  like  Elijah, 
that  your  little  band  was  left  alone  in  Israel,  but  you 
will  then  find  vast  multitudes  pouring  from  the  hills 
and  the  valleys,  from  the  mountains  and  the  gorges, 
to  rally  around  the  banner  of  the  Lord  God  of  Hosts. 

It  is  proper  to  notice  that  Matthew  and  Mark  place 
the  denial  of  Peter  after  the  condemnation  of  Christ, 
while  Luke  places  it  before  that  event,  and  John 
speaks  of  it  as  occurring  during  the  progress  of  the 
trial.  We  hope  to  be  able  to  give  a  satisfactory 
explanation  of  this  difference  in  their  respective  ac- 
counts. But  should  we  fail  to  do  so,  the  difference 
is  not  a  contradiction.  Observe  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  fact,  and  not  of  time.  Had  the  Evangelists  been 
called  upon  to  tell  the  precise  period  at  which  the 
three  denials  took  place,  and  differed  totally  in  fix- 
ing the  time,  we  would  frankly  acknowledge  our  in- 
ability to  harmonize  their  statements.  But  the  busi- 
ness of  the  writers  is  plainly  to  speak  of  the  denial, 
without  respect  to  the  time  when  it  happened.  The 
references  to  the  hour  are  only  incidental,  and  of  no 
sort  of.  consequence  in  regard  to  the  thing  narrated. 
In  questions  of  time,  we  have  a  right  to  expect  accu- 
racy even  to  a  minute.  In  questions  of  fact,  we  have 
a  right  to  expect  accuracy  even  to  the  smallest  par- 
ticular. But  inattention  to  fact  in  the  first  case, 
and  to  time  in  the  second  case,  argues  no  want  of 
truthfulness. 

If  a  witness  was  called  upon  in  court,  to  tell  when 
a  wound  was  inflicted,  and  a  physician  was  required 


232  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

to  describe  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  wound,  surely 
no  one  would  suppose  that  the  two  contradicted  each 
other,  should  the  physician  incidentally  speak  of  the 
wound  as  having  been  inflicted  at  a  different  time  from 
that  mentioned  by  the  other  witness.  Too  much 
attention  cannot  be  paid  to  the  distinction  that  we 
now  make.  Most  of  the  much-boasted  discrepancies 
are  just  of  the  character  here  described.  They  would 
not  have  the  least  weight  with  a  jury  of  even  mode- 
rate intelligence. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    NUMBER    THREE. 

The  three  denials  of  Peter  call  our  attention  to  the 
most  remarkable  fact,  that  everything  connected  with 
the  passion  of  our  Lord  was  in  the  triad  form.  The 
constant  recurrence  of  the  number  three,  has  often 
surprised  and  astounded  us.  It  scarcely  comes  within 
the  design  of  the  present  work  to  notice  every  inci- 
dent connected  with  this  numeral.  It  will  be  sufficient 
for  our  purpose,  to  mention  some  of  the  events  so 
related  to  this  number. 

Christ  took  three  of  his  disciples  apart  with  him  in 
the  garden.  He  prayed  three  times,  and  returned 
three  times  to  them.  The  chief  priests,  elders,  and 
scribes — the   three   orders  of   the  Jewish   theocratic 


OF    CHRIST.  233 

government — sent  the  party  to  arrest  him  in  Gethse- 
mane.  Mark  xiv.  53.  He  was  tried  three  times — 
first  before  Caiaphas,  then  before  Herod,  and  lastly 
before  Pilate.  He  was  denied  three  times  in  the 
house  of  Caiaphas.  Three  servants  of  the  high-priest, 
two  maids  and  the  kinsman  of  Malchus,  made  them- 
selves conspicuous  as  the  accusers  of  Peter.  Our 
Saviour  was  maltreated  in  three  ways,  in  the  house 
of  Caiaphas.  They  spit  upon  him,  buffeted,  and  smote 
him  with  the  palms  of  their  hands.  Matt.  xxvi.  67. 
In  the  judgment-hall  of  Pilate,  he  was  mocked  in 
three  ways — with  the  crown  of  thorns,  with  the  scarlet 
robe,  and  with  the  reed  sceptre.  Matt,  xxvii.  28,  29. 
Pilate  made  three  distinct  efforts  to  save  his  illustrious 
prisoner.  (John  xviii.  and  xix.  compared  with  Luke 
xxiii.  22.)  Three  nails  were  most  probably  used  to 
fix  our  Redeemer  to  the  cross — two  in  his  hands,  and 
one  in  his  feet.  There  were  three  crucified  at  the 
same  time — our  Lord,  and  two  malefactors.  There 
were  three  superscriptions  over  him — one  in  Greek, 
one  in  Latin,  and  one  in  Hebrew.  The  writing  set 
forth  three  things — the  name,  the  country,  and  the 
title  of  the  Sufferer,  "Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  King  of 
the  Jews."  There  were  three  vessels  placed  by  the 
cross — one  containing  vinegar  mingled  with  gall,  (Mat- 
thew ;)  another,  wine  mingled  with  myrrh,  (Mark ;) 
a  third,  unadulterated  wine,  (John.)  The  first  two 
drinks  were  stupefying  potions,  and  were  probably 
intended  to  be  used  at  different,  stages  of  suffering. 
The  pure  wine  was  for  the  use  of  the  soldiers.  Our 
20* 


234  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

adorable  Saviour  gave  three  manifestations  of  his 
humanity — by  his  thirst,  by  his  cry  of  agony,  and  by 
the  blood  which  flowed  from  his  pericardium.  There 
were  also  three  glorious  displays  of  his  divinity — the 
darkening  of  the  sun  showed  his  dominion  over  the 
solar  system ;  the  earthquake,  which  rent  the  rocks, 
shook  down  the  veil  of  the  temple,  and  opened  the 
graves,  showed  his  lordship  over  earth ;  the  raising 
of  the  dead,  and  the  pardon  of  the  thief,  showed  his 
authority  in  the  world  of  spirits  and  the  heaven  of 
heavens.  The  sun  withdrew  his  light  for  three  hours. 
The  earthquake  accomplished  three  objects.  Sinners, 
saints,  and  penitents,  were  severally  represented  by 
those  he  addressed  in  his  hour  of  anguish — sinners, 
in  the  persons  of  his  murderers,  for  whom  he  prayed ; 
saints,  in  the  persons  of  John  and  his  mother ;  peni- 
tents, in  the  person  of  the  repentant  thief.  To  the 
first  class,  he  manifested  forgiveness  ;  to  the  second, 
love  stronger  than  death ;  to  the  third,  pardon,  and 
promise  of  eternal  life.  The  cry  of  anguish,  "My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  was 
doubtless  addressed  to  the  Father  and  Spirit.  The 
name  of  God  was  not  thrice  repeated,  because  the 
glorious  Sufferer  was  himself  the  third  person  of  the 
mysterious  Trinity.  And  thus,  too,  we  have  been 
disposed  to  account  for  the  twice  three  hours  on 
the  cross.  The  justice  of  the  Father,  and  the  jus- 
tice of  the  Spirit,  each  demanded  satisfaction  by 
three  hours  of  suffering  for  man's  three-fold  sins — 
in  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  in  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and 


or  christ.  235 

in  the  pride  of  life.  If  it  be  an  impressive  truth, 
that 

"There  's  not  a  gift  his  hand  bestows, 
But  cost  his  heart  a  groan," 

how  much  more  impressive  and  solemn  is  it  that 
there  is  no  form  of  sin,  which  had  not  its  appropriate 
hour  of  expiation  in  the  anguish  of  the  Son  of  God 
upon  the  cross !  Surely,  if  there  be  any  thought  that 
can  fill  the  disciple  of  Jesus  with  loathing  for  every 
species  of  wickedness,  it  is  this  painful  reflection. 
Surely,  too,  this  thought  should  afford  abundant 
encouragement  in  the  darkest  season  of  distress, 
whether  from  bodily  pain,  bereavement,  estrangement 
of  friends,  malice  of  enemies,  pecuniary  embarrass- 
ment, loss  of  reputation,  or  the  assaults  of  the  great 
adversary.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same,  yesterday,  to- 
day, and  for  ever.  His  pity  and  his  love  are  just  as 
strong  now,  as  when  he  voluntarily  endured  the  hiding 
of  his  Father's  face.  Let  us  bear  with  patience,  our 
hour  of  trial,  since  each  kind  of  our  sins  had  its  dou- 
ble hour  of  penalty  in  "the  pains,  the  groans,  and 
dying  strife"  of  our  surety  and  substitute. 

The  body  of  our  Lord  Avas  carried  to  its  resting 
place  in  a  garden.  The  first  Adam  lost  his  innocence 
in  a  garden,  was  driven  out  from  his  permanent  home, 
and  became  a  wanderer  on  the  earth,  with  "the 
world  all  before  him  where  to  choose."  The  rest  of 
the  second  Adam  in  a  garden,  seems  to  typify  the 
repossession  of  the  forfeited  Paradise;  the  reversal 
of  the  sentence  of  expulsion.     And  as  Jesus  gained 


236  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

his  great  victory  over  the  powers  of  darkness  in  the 
garden  of  Gethsemane,  so  he  gained  a  triumph  over 
the  great  destroyer  of  our  race  in  this  garden,  in  "  the 
place  of  skulls."  Thus,  by  an  inscrutable  providence, 
over-ruling  and  directing  the  wrath  of  man,  the  very 
name  of  the  spot  on  which  stood  the  cross,  was  sug- 
gestive of  the  desolation  brought  upon  our  race  by 
man's  disobedience,  and  emblematic  of  the  conquest 
over  the  sting  of  death,  and  the  victory  over  the  grave, 
through  the  obedience  of  our  precious  Redeemer. 
And  how  the  lesson  taught  by  the  three  gardens, 
rebukes  our  proneness  to  judge  by  the  specious  show ! 
"The  Lord  seeth  not  as  man  seeth;  for  man  looketh 
on  the  outward  appearance,  but  the  Lord  looketh  on 
the  heart."  Paradise,  with  its  beauty,  its  bloom,  and 
its  fragrance,  brought  the  defilement  of  sin,  the  decay 
of  disease,  the  rottenness  of  the  grave.  The  struggle 
in  Gethsemane  on  that  black,  moonless  night,  brought 
deliverance  from  the  powers  of  darkness.  The  bloody 
sweat  of  the  Redeemer  wiped  all  tears  from  the  eyes 
of  the  redeemed.  That  third  garden  in  Golgotha, 
with  its  burial  place  of  silence  and  of  gloom,  "brought 
life  and  immortality  to  light,"  gave  an  earnest  of  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  assurance  to  that 
hope 

"Which  looks  beyond  the  bounds  of  time, 
When  what  we  now  deplore 
Shall  rise  in  full  immortal  prime, 
And  bloom,  to  fade  no  more." 

The  mystic  connection  among  the  three  gardens, 
may  explain  the  remarkable  promise  of  our  Saviour 


OF    CHRIST.  237 

to  the  penitent  thief,  "  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me 
in  Paradise."  Did  he  not  have  in  his  mind  his 
regaining,  as  the  second  Adam,  the  Paradise  lost  by 
the  first  ? 

Three  women  are  specially  distinguished  for  their 
care  of  the  body  of  their  murdered  Lord — Mary 
Magdalene,  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses, 
and  Salome.  Our  Saviour  was  three  days  in  the 
sepulchre.  Three  angels  came  to  minister  unto  him 
at  his  resurrection.  One  of  these  rolled  away  the 
stone,  and  kept  guard  at  the  entrance.  (Matthew  and 
Mark.)  The  other  two  went  in  to  their  Lord,  served 
him  as  attendants,  and  wrapped  up  and  laid  by  his 
grave-clothes.  (Luke  and  John.) 

Was  this  triplex  concurrence  of  events  accidental  ? 
Did  a  God  of  infinite  wisdom  have  no  design  in  it  ? 
Can  we  account  for  it  upon  the  infidel  scheme  of  the 
fortuitous  arrangement  of  chance?  No  mortal  man 
can  explain  the  deep,  hidden  significance  of  the  repe- 
tition. "  The  secret  things  belong  unto  the  Lord  our 
God ;  but  those  things  which  are  revealed,  belong  unto 
us  and  to  our  children  for  ever,  that  we  may  do  all 
the  words  of  this  law."  "It  is  the  glory  of  God  to 
conceal  a  thing."  The  preceding  conjectures  are 
then  mere  speculations,  it  may  be,  idle  and  unprofit- 
able speculations.  But  the  impossiblity  of  an  expla- 
nation makes  most  powerfully  against  infidelity.  This 
constant  recurrence  of  the  number  three  cannot  be 
accidental.  Any  one,  the  least  acquainted  with  the 
mathematical  theory  of  probabilities,  knows  that  the 


238  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

hypothesis  of  the  happening  of  so  many  threes,  by 
mere  chance,  is  too  absurd  to  be  entertained  a  single 
moment.  There  must  then  have  been  a  controlling 
mind,  either  to  direct  the  triple  events,  or  to  direct 
the  relation  of  them.  The  first  view  gives  us  God 
disposing  of  all  the  affairs  connected  with  the  cruci- 
fixion. If  God  interposed,  and  arranged  all  these 
matters  in  this  remarkable  form,  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
was  no  ordinary  sufferer.  We  take  the  infidel  on  his 
own  ground ;  he  constantly  denies  the  intervention  of 
the  Creator  in  the  minor  operations  of  creation.  The 
doctrine  of  a  special  Providence  finds  no  favour  with 
those  who  "have  not  God  in  all  their  thoughts." 
The  conclusion,  then,  is  inevitable,  the  Providence  of 
God  displayed  in  so  many  little  particulars,  must 
demonstrate  that  He  who  died  on  Calvary  was  no 
ordinary  being. 

But,  let  us  take  the  second  view,  and  see  whether 
it  helps  the  cause  of  unbelief.  Let  us  suppose  that 
the  events  did  not  occur,  and  that  the  Evangelists 
fraudulently  and  designedly  gave  us  this  concatenated 
series  with  its  triple  links.  The  question  then  arises, 
what  was  the  motive  for  throwing  in  so  many  curious 
facts  in  their  narrative?  How  did  they  happen  to 
select  this  precise  number  threel  And  why  have 
they  repeated  it  some  twenty  times?  Was  their 
object  to  produce  something  novel,  a  sort  of  Chinese 
puzzle?  But  the  inventors  of  rare  and  ingenious 
machinery  are  careful  to  display  their  works  of  art. 
This  cannot  be  said  of  the  Evangelists,  for  the  triple 


OF   CHRIST.  239 

ply  has  been  woven  in  their  story  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  world  has  not  perceived  it  at  all.  That  which 
is  so  singular  and  wonderful  in  their  story,  has  com- 
pletely escaped  the  notice,  as  well  as  the  comment  of 
mankind.  We  are  not  aware  that  a  single  individual 
has  ever  called  attention  to  it.  But  even  if  this  has 
been  done,  it  is  certain  that  the  vast  majority  of 
readers  of  the  gospels  have  not  observed  the  tri-form 
nature  of  the  occurrences  connected  with  the  Cruci- 
fixion. Remember  that  we  have  shown  that  so  many 
particulars,  all  in  this  form,  could  not  have  been  re- 
lated without  some  design  on  the  part  of  the  narrators. 
The  accidental  concurrence  of  so  many  circumstances 
in  a  tale,  is  mathematically  impossible.  Upon  the 
infidel  hypothesis,  that  the  Evangelists  were  writers 
of  fiction,  we  are  driven  to  the  absurd  conclusion,  that 
four  men  agreed  to  connect  the  number  three  with 
almost  every  incident  related  by  them,  and  yet  to 
conceal  the  connection  so  carefully,  that  it  should 
escape  observation.  The  individual  who  can  believe 
that  the  Evangelists  could  commit  such  an  absurdity, 
may  disbelieve  their  record,  but  it  is  from  no  want  of 
credulity  in  his  mental  organization.  He  is  certainly 
credulous  enough  to  believe  anything.  It  is  a  notable 
fact  that  those  who  are  most  sceptical  in  matters  of 
religion,  are  generally  most  credulous  in  all  other 
matters.  The  boasted  free-thinker  is  generally  the 
veriest  slave  of  superstition.  He  gives  his  doubts  to 
the  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  his  faith  to  every- 
thing else.     There  is  nothing  too  wild,  too  unnatural, 


240  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

and  too  preposterous  for  him  to  believe;  God  has 
given  him  over  to  "strong  delusion  that  he  should 
believe  a  lie." 

Man  is  so  constituted  that  he  must  have  one  sure 
object  of  belief,  else  his  faith  will  lay  hold  upon 
ten  thousand  absurdities.  The  anchor,  loosed  from 
its  hold  on  firm  ground,  catches  the  drifting  seaweed 
in  its  flukes.  Men  lose  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
God,  but  to  people  the  groves,  the  fountains,  the  hills, 
and  the  valleys,  with  imaginary  deities.  All  the 
delusions  that  have  perplexed,  maddened,  and  cursed 
our  race,  have  had  their  root  in  unbelief  of  the  truth, 
as  it  is  in  Jesus. 

An  incident  in  the  life  of  the  infidel,  Lord  Herbert 
of  Cherbury,  exhibits  most  strikingly  the  grossness 
of  the  superstition  into  which  the  rejecters  of  the 
gospel  are  prone  to  fall.  After  he  had  written  his 
deistical  work,  called  Be  Veritate,  he  had  doubts 
about  publishing  it.  "Being  thus  doubtful  in  my 
chamber,"  writes  he  in  his  Memoirs,  "one  fair  day 
in  summer,  my  casement  being  open  to  the  south,  the 
sun  shining  clear,  and  no  wind  stirring,  I  took  my 
book,  Be  Veritate,  in  my  hand,  and  kneeling  on  my 
knees,  devoutly  said  these  words : — '  0  thou  eternal 
God,  author  of  the  light  which  now  shines  upon  me, 
and  giver  of  all  inward  illuminations,  I  do  beseech 
thee,  of  thy  infinite  goodness,  to  pardon  a  greater 
request  than  a  sinner  ought  to  make.  I  am  not  satis- 
fied enough,  whether  I  ought  to  publish  this  book,  De 

Veritate.     If  it  be  for  thy  glory,  give  me  some  sign 


OF   CHRIST.  241 

from  heaven;  if  not,  I  shall  suppress  it.'  I  had  no 
sooner  spoken  these  words,  but  a  loud,  though  yet 
gentle  noise  came  from  the  heavens,  (for  it  was  like 
nothing  on  earth,)  which  did  so  comfort  and  cheer 
me,  that  I  took  my  petition  as  granted,  and  that  I 
had  the  sign  I  demanded;  whereupon  also  I  printed 
my  book."  "This,"  he  adds,  "how  strange  soever  it 
may  seem,  I  protest,  before  eternal  God,  is  true: 
neither  am  I  in  any  way  superstitiously  deceived 
herein,  since  I  did  not  only  clearly  hear  the  noise, 
but,  in  the  serenest  sky  that  I  ever  saw,  being  all 
without  cloud,  did  also,  to  my  thinking,  see  the  place 
from  whence  it  came." 

And  so  Lord  Herbert,  who  could  not  believe  that 
God  would  deign  to  manifest  himself  to  save  millions 
of  our  race  from  eternal  death,  yet  could  believe  that 
this  great  Being  did  manifest  himself  to  him,  in  order 
to  encourage  the  publication  of  a  paltry  book ! 

Lord  Herbert  was  but  the  representative  of  his 
class.  It  is  notoriously  true,  that  the  sin-darkened 
mind  will  believe  any  thing,  save  that  the  Bible  is 
from  God,  and  that  Jesus  is  the  Author  of  eternal 
salvation.  It  is  notoriously  true,  that  the  most  extra- 
vagant and  dangerous  speculations  prevail  most  exten- 
sively in  those  regions  where  the  gospel  of  Christ  has 
the  least  influence.  Athens  was  celebrated  for  its 
schools  of  sceptical  philosophy,  when  Paul,  standing 
in  the  midst  of  Mars-hill,  proclaimed,  "  Ye  men  of 
Athens,  I  perceive  that  in  all  things  ye  are  too  super- 
stitious." Nearly  eighteen  hundred  years  after  this 
21 


242  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

declaration,  France  rejected  the  true  God,  and  wor- 
shipped a  veiled  prostitute,  as  the  goddess  of  reason ! 
And  so  we  account  for  the  idolatrous  devotion  of  the 
French  soldiers  to  Napoleon.  He  became  as  God,  to 
those  who  had  no  God.  "Why  do  you  weep,"  said 
he  to  a  wounded  grenadier,  " am  I  not  with  you?" 
"True,  sire,"  replied  the  dying  man,  "I  had  forgotten 
that."     And  so  the  poor  fellow  was  consoled. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  explaining  why  the  infidel 
is  so  grossly  superstitious.  God  avenges  his  insulted 
majesty.  He  has  made  faith  in  himself  a  cardinal 
principle  of  our  moral  constitutions.  When  we  do 
violence  to  our  faith,  we  do  violence  also  to  our  spirit- 
ural  natures.  When  there  is  no  one  legitimate  object 
of  belief,  there  will  be  hundreds  of  false  and  perni- 
cious objects.  The  vitiated  appetite,  which  rejects 
wholesome  and  nourishing  food,  craves  that  which  is 
vile  and  hurtful. 

Believers  have  been  content  to  defend  themselves 
against  the  charge  of  superstition.  This  defensive 
policy  has  been  bad  policy,  to  say  the  least  of  it. 
"Tell  my  lord  prince,"  said  the  gallant  old  Suwar- 
row,  "  that  I  know  nothing  of  defensive  warfare.  My 
strategy  is,  to  seek  the  enemy,  and  to  fight  him,  when 
and  wherever  found."  Let  Christians  imitate  the 
conduct  of  the  brave  Russian.  Let  them  carry  the 
war  into  the  enemy's  country.  Let  them  show,  that 
those  who  boast  the  most  of  their  freedom  from  idle 
fancies  and  religious  impressions  are,  of  all  men,  the 
most  childishly  credulous,  the  most  completely  given 


OF   CHRIST.  243 

up  to  the  rioting  of  loose  imaginations.  Let  them 
show  that  these  boasters  are,  of  all  men,  the  most  apt 
to  believe  in  dreams,  omens,  prognostics,  presenti- 
ments, foreshadowings,  spiritual  agencies,  and  every 
species  of  delusion.  Let  them  tell  how  Hume,  the 
great  infidel  leader,  could  chatter  about  the  river 
Styx,  and  Charon  the  boatman,  until  death  stopped 
his  frivolity.  Let  them  tell  how  the  puerilities  of 
heathenism,  instead  of  the  solemn  realities  of  eternity, 
occupied  the  mind  of  the  dying  philosopher.  Let 
them  then  ask,  What  is  gained  by  substituting  pagan 
mythology  for  the  religion  of  the  Son  of  God  ? 

Poor,  miserable  sceptic!  Has  your  freedom  from 
superstition  ended  in  this  ?  Have  you  given  up  the 
glorious  light  of  the  gospel,  to  return  to  the  darkness 
of  heathenism?  Have  you  ceased  to  worship  God, 
that  you  might  worship  devils  ?  Have  you  left  Mount 
Moriah  and  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  to  go  down  into 
the  polluted  vale  of  Hinnom,  and  there  sacrifice  to 
demons  and  unclean  spirits  ? 

Father  in  heaven !  help  us  to  adore  thee  in  spirit 
and  in  truth,  that  we  may  not  be  given  over  to  the 
bondage  of  superstition,  and  the  madness  of  unbelief. 

53.  The  sum  of  our  argument  is  this.  The  recur- 
rence of  the  number  three  so  many  times,  could  not 
have  been  accidental.  There  must  then  have  been 
some  design  in  the  mind  of  God,  to  make  the  events 
occur  in  this  triple  form,  or  there  must  have  been 
some  design  in  the  mind  dictating  the  narrative. 
Take  the  first  view,  and  we  have  a  special  Providence 


244  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

controlling  all  the  transactions  connected  with  the 
crucifixion.  But  the  infidel  denies  the  interposition 
of  Providence  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life.  Hence, 
upon  his  own  principles,  the  death  of  Jesus  could 
have  heen  no  ordinary  affair.  Take  the  second  view, 
and  we  have  some  mind  dictating  the  story  of  the 
cross,  according  to  a  preconceived  plan,  of  giving  a 
triad  shape  to  the  principal  occurrences.  But  this 
directing  mind  must  have  been  the  mind  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  It  is  utterly  impossible  to  believe  that  the 
Evangelists  would  frame  designedly  so  singular  a 
tale,  and  strive  to  conceal  its  singularity  from  their 
readers.  We  can  account  for  their  silence  touching 
that  which  is  so  extraordinary  in  their  narration, 
upon  the  supposition  that  they  wrote,  as  the  Holy 
Ghost  dictated,  and  were  not  themselves  aware  of  the 
remarkable  recurrence  of  the  number  three.  But, 
according  to  the  infidel  scheme,  they  had  a  design 
without  a  motive,  a  plan  without  a  reason  for  it,  a 
pre-arranged  system  without  any  definite  object  in 
view !  Surely,  human  credulity  can  go  no  farther 
than  to  believe  such  an  absurdity  as  this. 

We  leave  the  unbeliever  to  take  his  choice  in  the 
dilemma ;  either  to  suppose  design  in  controlling  the 
events  connected  with  the  crucifixion,  or  design  in 
controlling  the  recital  of  them.  Whichever  horn  he 
takes,  will  push  his  infidelity  to  the  last  extremity. 


OF   CHRIST. 


245 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS  BEFORE  CAlAPHAS. 

We  must  now  leave  Luke,  and  turn  to  Matthew  and 
Mark,  for  some  particulars  recorded  only  by  them. 


Matthew  xxvi.  59-68. 
"Now,  the  chief  priests,  and 
elders,  and  all  the  council  sought 
false  witness  against  Jesus,  to 
put  him  to  death;  but  found 
none:  yea,  though  many  false 
witnesses  came,  yet  found  they 
none.  At  the  last  came  two 
false  witnesses,  and  said,  This 
fellow  said,  I  am  able  to  destroy 
the  temple  of  God,  and  to  build 
it  in  three  days.  And  the  high- 
priest  arose  and  said  unto  him, 
Answerest thou  nothing?  What 
is  it  which  these  witness  against 
thee?  But  Jesus  held  his  peace. 
And  the  high-priest  answered 
and  said  unto  him,  I  adjure  thee 
by  the  living  God,  that  thou 
tell  us  whether  thou  be  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Jesus 
saith  unto  him,  Thou  hast  said: 
nevertheless,  I  say  unto  you, 
hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son 
of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand 
of  power,  and  coming  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven.  Then  the  high- 
priest  rent  his  clothes,  saying, 
He  hath  spoken  blasphemy ; 
what  further  need  have  we  of 
witnesses?  behold,  now  ye  have 
heard  his  blasphemy.  What 
think  ye?  They  answered  and 
said,  He  is  guilty  of  death." 


These  verses  afford  a  fine 
21* 


Mark  xiv.  55-65. 
"And  the  chief  priests,  and 
all  the  council  sought  for  wit- 
ness against  Jesus  to  put  him 
to  death;  and  found  none.  For 
many  bare  false  witness  against 
him,  but  their  witness  agreed 
not  together.  And  there  arose 
cei'tain,  and  bare  false  witness 
against  him,  saying,  We  heard 
him  say,  I  will  destroy  this 
temple  that  is  made  with  hands, 
and  within  three  days,  I  will 
build  another  made  without 
hands.  But  neither  so  did 
their  witness  agree  together. 
And  the  high-priest  stood  up 
in  the  midst,  and  asked  Jesus, 
saying,  Answerest  thou  nothing? 
what  is  it  which  these  witness 
against  thee?  But  he  held  his 
peace,  and  answered  nothing. 
Again  the  high-priest  asked 
him,  and  said  unto  him,  Art 
thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
Blessed?  And  Jesus  said,  I 
am :  and  ye  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand 
of  power,  and  coming  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven.  Then  the 
high-priest  rent  his  clothes,  and 
saith,  What  need  we  any  further 
witnesses  ?  Ye  have  heard  the 
blasphemy :  what  think  ye  ?  And 
they  all  condemned  him  to  be 
guilty  of  death." 

specimen  of  the  supply- 


246  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

ing,  by  one  writer,  the  omissions  of  another;  more- 
over, what  is  declared  in  them,  is  substantiated  by 
the  collateral  declarations  of  the  last  two  Evangelists. 
We  will  first  notice  the  supplementing,  and  then  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  Luke  and  John. 

We  have  seen  before,  that  when  Caiaphas  "  asked 
Jesus  of  his  disciples  and  his  doctrine,"  our  Lord 
referred  him  to  his  hearers.  "  Why  askest  thou  me? 
ask  them  which  heard  me,  what  I  have  said  unto 
them:  behold,  they  know  what  I  have  said."  The 
false  and  malignant  high-priest  availed  himself  of  the 
hint,  not  to  call  in  those  who  would  truly  report  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  but  those  who  would  pervert  and 
misrepresent  them.  The  great  object  of  this  cold- 
blooded villain,  was  to  find  "false  witness  against 
Jesus,  to  put  him  to  death."  But  Matthew  tells  us 
that  he  could  procure  none;  "Yea,  though  many  false 
witnesses  came,  yet  found  they  none."  This  asser- 
tion of  Matthew  seems  absurd  and  contradictory. 
How  can  we  reconcile  the  conflicting  declarations,  that 
many  witnesses  came,  and  that  none  could  be  found  ? 
We  could  not  understand  this  language  at  all,  without 
the  explanation  of  Mark.  "For  many  bare  false 
witness  against  him,  but  their  witness  agreed  not 
together."  We  now  perceive  what  Matthew  means 
by  saying  that  they  found  none.  They  found  none, 
whose  witness  agreed,  and  shameless  as  were  the 
Jews,  they  could  not.  proceed  to  condemn  Christ  with- 
out some  show  of  consistent  testimony  against  him. 
Caiaphas  and  his  infernal  associates  were  now  in  a 


OF   CHRIST.  247 

strait,  ravenous  for  blood,  as  a  bear  robbed  of  her 
whelps,  and  yet  so  accustomed  to  obey  the  letter  of 
the  law,  that  they  could  not  act  without  some  plausi- 
ble pretext  for  passing  sentence  of  death.  But  Satan 
did  not  long  leave  them  in  a  state  of  perplexity.  They 
had  served  him  too  faithfully  for  him  to  desert  them 
in  their  extremity.  Accordingly,  the  arch-fiend  put 
it  into  the  hearts  of  some  of  his  followers  to  appear 
as  witnesses ;  and  so  Mark  tells,  that  "  there  arose 
certain,  and  bare  false  witness  against  him,  saying, 
"We  have  heard  him  say,  I  will  destroy  this  temple 
that  is  made  with  hands,  and  within  three  days  I  will 
build  another  made  without  hands.  But  neither  so 
did  their  witness  agree  together."  There  are  two 
things  left  indefinite  by  Mark.  We  do  not  know 
how  many  witnesses  there  were,  nor  do  we  know  in 
what  their  testimony  disagreed.  Matthew  removes 
the  first  difficulty,  by  directly  telling  us  that  there 
were  two  witnesses ;  and  he  indirectly  removes  the 
other  difficulty,  by  giving  a  different  version  of  the 
declarations  of  the  two  witnesses.  We  can,  by  com- 
paring Matthew  and  Mark,  tell  exactly  in  what  the 
testimony  did  not  agree  together.  One  witness  testi- 
fied that  our  Saviour  said,  "I  am  able  to  destroy  the 
temple  of  God."  The  other  witness  testified,  that 
he  said  he  would  do  it.  The  difference  is  immense 
between  the  ability  to  do  a  thing,  and  the  determina- 
tion to  do  it.  A  man,  with  a  deadly  weapon  in  his 
hand,  might  innocently  say  that  he  was  able  to  kill  a 
bystander  with  it;  but  he  would  be  amenable  to  the 


248  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

law  for  saying  that  it  was  his  intention  to  kill  that 
bystander.  The  testimony  of  the  two  false  witnesses 
differed  essentially ;  but  without  comparing  the  Evan- 
gelists, we  could  not  have  discovered  the  disagree- 
ment. 

Moreover,  Matthew,  in  mentioning  the  precise  num- 
ber of  false  witnesses,  has  not  merely  supplemented, 
he  has  also  given  us  a  fine  specimen  of  natural  evi- 
dence. Matthew,  a  Jew,  and  writing  for  his  country- 
men, the  Jews,  would  naturally  mention  the  fact,  that 
tivo  witnesses,  the  precise  number  required  by  the 
Mosaic  code,  appeared  against  our  blessed  Redeemer : 
aAt  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses,  or  three  witnesses, 
shall  he  that  is  worthy  of  death  be  put  to  death,  but 
at  the  mouth  of  one  witness  shall  he  not  be  put  to 
death."  Deut.  xvii.  6,  xix.  15;  Numb.  xxxv.  30. 
From  another  Evangelist,  writing  about  another  mat- 
ter, we  learn  that  it  was  the  practice  of  the  Jewish 
courts  to  establish  important  points  by  just  two  wit- 
nesses. (See  John  viii.  17.) 

Now,  we  ask  the  candid  reader,  How  did  Matthew 
happen  to  confine  himself  to  precisely  the  number 
two,  if  that  number  of  witnesses  did  not  present  them- 
selves ?  If  we  are  answered,  that  he  got  the  idea  from 
his  education,  from  his  Jewish  notions  of  justice,  then 
he  has  given  us  a  natural  stroke,  and  has  preserved 
his  individuality  as  a  writer.  We  must  not  forget, 
too,  that  he  wrote  for  those  who  knew  all  about  the 
trial  of  Christ.  If,  then,  but  one  witness  appeared, 
or  if  more  than   two  appeared,  with   this  story  of 


OF   CHRIST.  249 

Christ's  destroying  the  temple,  there  were  those  living 
when  Matthew  wrote,  who  could  have  convicted  him 
of  falsehood.  His  circumstantiality  is,  therefore,  a 
strong  presumptive  proof  of  his  honesty;  and  that, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  naturalness  of  a  Jew's 
mentioning  to  his  brethren  the  compliance  with  Jew- 
ish law,  demonstrates  his  truthfulness. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  narrative.  It  seems  that 
the  statements  of  the  two  witnesses  were  too  glaringly 
discordant  to  be  taken  by  Caiaphas,  although  he  was 
thirsting  for  the  blood  of  his  victim.  He  therefore 
sought  to  make  our  Saviour  testify  against  himself: 
"And  the  high-priest  arose  and  stood  up  in  the  midst, 
and  asked  Jesus,  saying,  Answerest  thou  nothing? 
What  is  it  which  these  witness  against  thee?"  But 
Jesus  was  not  caught  in  the  snare  thus  artfully  laid: 
"But  he  held  his  peace,  and  answered  nothing." 
And  so  the  prophet  had  foreseen,  with  all  this  scene 
before  him,  more  than  seven  hundred  years  anterior 
to  its  occurrence:  "He  was  oppressed,  and  he  was 
afflicted,  yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth :  He  is  brought 
as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep  before  her 
shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  openeth  not  his  mouth."  But 
Caiaphas  was  actuated  by  too  keen  a  hate,  not  to 
make  another  eifort  to  extort  a  confession:  "Again 
the  high-priest  asked  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Art 
thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?"  (Mark.) 
This  second  appeal  was  effectual :  "And  Jesus  said, 
I  am."  If  we  had  only  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  we 
would  be  at  a  loss  to  know  why  it  was  that  our  Lord 


250  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

now  answered,  since  he  had  declined  to  criminate  him- 
self before  any  witnesses  were  called,  (John  xviii.  21,) 
and  after  the  false  witnesses  had  contradicted  one 
another.  On  turning  to  Matthew,  however,  the  mys- 
tery is  cleared  up.  We  there  learn  that  he  responded, 
in  consequence  of  a  solemn  adjuration  on  the  part  of 
the  high-priest.  "And  the  high-priest  answered,  and 
said  unto  him,  I  adjure  thee  by  the  living  God,  that 
thou  tell  us  whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God." 

It  would  seem  that  the  high-priest,  according  to 
the  Jewish  code,  had  a  right  to  administer  an  oath  to 
the  person  under  trial,  and  the  person  was  required 
to  make  true  answer,  though  he  thereby  criminated 
himself.  (See  Numbers  v.  19.)  Dr.  Doddridge  has 
thus  paraphrased  the  language  of  Caiaphas:  "And 
again  the  high-priest  answered,  and  said  to  him, 
Think  not  that  such  evasions  will  answer  in  an  affair 
of  such  importance  as  this  :  thou  knowest  that  I  have 
a  way  of  coming  at  the  certain  truth,  and,  therefore, 
I  adjure  thee,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  by  the  name 
and  the  authority  of  the  living  God,  whose  high-priest 
I  am,  and  to  whom  he  has  committed  the  power  of 
administering  this  oath,  that  thou  tell  us  directly,  in 
the  plainest  terms,  whether  thou  be  the  Messiah,  the 
son  of  the  ever-blessed  God,  or  not?"  And  in  proof 
of  the  right  of  the  high-priest  to  administer  an  oath, 
the  learned  expositor  quotes  various  passages  from 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  So  we  see  that  Mat- 
thew, in  stating  that  the  high-priest  put  Jesus  upon 
21 


OF   CHRIST.  251 

his  oath,  has  told  us  nothing  inconsistent  with  the 
judicial  proceedings  among  his  own  people.  Dr. 
Alexander  says,  "  This  was  an  attempt  (on  the  part 
of  Caiaphas)  to  make  the  prisoner  supply  the  want 
of  testimony  by  his  own  confession,  a  proceeding 
utterly  abhorrent  to  the  spirit  and  practice  of  the 
English  law,  though  familiar  to  the  codes  and  courts 
of  other  nations,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times." 
Our  Saviour,  then,  answered  the  question  of  Caiaphas, 
because  the  high-priest  had  a  right  to  put  him  on 
oath,  and,  therefore,  by  his  response,  he  showed  his 
obedience  to  law  and  his  determination  to  "  fulfil  all 
righteousness."  Matt.  iii.  15. 

We  introduced  the  testimony  of  Matthew  to  ex- 
plain why  our  Saviour  broke  his  long  silence,  and 
answered  the  artful  question  of  Caiaphas.  But  the 
statement  of  this  Evangelist  not  only  removes  the 
obscurity  of  Mark's  evidence,  it  comports  moreover 
with  what  is  known  of  the  Israelitish  jurisprudence. 
Notice,  too,  the  naturalness  of  an  allusion  to  Jewish 
laws,  by  a  Jew  writing  to  those  of  his  own  nation. 
There  is  an  obvious  propriety  and  fitness  of  things, 
in  the  allusions  coming  from  Matthew. 

54.  A  review  of  our  testimony  shows  that  we  have 
a  four-fold  argument  for  the  credibility  of  the  wit- 
nesses— first,  Mark's  explaining  what  Matthew  meant 
by  saying  that  no  witnesses  could  be  found,  though 
many  witnesses  came;  second,  the. comparison  of  the 
two  Evangelists,  showing  in  what  the  witnesses  disa- 
greed ;    third,  the  removing  by  Matthew  of  an   ob- 


252  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

scurity  in  Mark ;  fourth,  the  natural  alluding  of  Mat- 
thew to  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  Jews. 

We  come  now  to  the  second  part  of  the  proposed 
discussion  of  the  preceding  verses.  We  will  try  to 
prove,  that  though  Luke  and  John  differ  greatly  from 
the  first  two  Evangelists  in  regard  to  the  proceedings 
in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  yet  there  is  really  the  most 
perfect  harmony  of  spirit  pervading  all  four  of  their 
narratives.  We  will  begin  with  John,  who  notices  but 
one  incident  in  the  palace  of  the  high-priest — the  blow 
inflicted  on  Jesus,  when  he  refused  to  answer  the 
questions  propounded  to  him.  Though  John  gives  us 
so  little  of  the  transactions  before  Caiaphas,  we  will 
find  that  he  corroborates  the  full  accounts  of  Matthew 
and  Mark,  in  the  most  natural  and  undesigned  man- 
ner. First,  we  find  agreement  in  regard  to  the  decla- 
ration that  "the  chief  priests  and  elders,  and  all  the 
council,  sought  false  witness  against  Jesus,  to  put  him 
to  death."  John  substantiates  this  most  fully,  by 
showing  that  the  Jewish  rulers  had  sought  the  death 
of  Christ  on  many  occasions.  Thus,  he  tells  us  that 
"the  Jews  did  persecute  Jesus,  and  sought  to  slay 
him,  because  he  had  done  these  things  on  the  Sabbath- 
day."  This  was  in  the  first  year  of  our  Lord's  minis- 
try. So  we  see,  that  though  John  omits  to  mention 
the  desire  of  the  Jews  to  put  our  Saviour  to  death, 
when  a  prisoner  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  yet  he  dates 
the  beginning  of  this  desire  at  least  two  years  back. 
So  too,  John  tells  us,  that  after  Jesus  delivered  his 
discourse  in  the  synagogue  of  Capernaum,  he  "walked 


OF   CHRIST.  253 

in  Galilee :  for  he  would  not  walk  in  Jewry,  because 
the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him."  So  too,  John  tells  us 
how  our  Lord  went  up  secretly  to  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, to  escape  the  observation  of  his  enemies: 
"Then  went  he  also  up  unto  the  feast,  not  openly, 
but  as  it  were  in  secret."  And  he  tells  us,  too,  of 
the  disappointment  of  the  Jews,  when  they  could  not 
find  him :  "  Then  the  Jews  sought  him  at  the  feast, 
and  said,  Where  is  he?  And  there  was  much  mur- 
muring among  the  people  concerning  him :  for  some 
said,  He  is  a  good  man:  others  said,  Nay;  but  he 
deceiveth  the  people.  Howbeit,  no  man  spake  openly 
of  him,  for  fear  of  the  Jews."  From  this  it  appears 
that  so  intense  was  the  hatred  of  the  Jews,  that  it  was 
dangerous  for  any  man  even  to  speak  of  Christ.  How 
imminent,  then,  must  have  been  his  risk,  in  coming  to 
the  feast,  and  how  great  must  have  been  his  courage ! 
John  too,  tells  us  of  an  effort  to  entrap  Christ,  by 
bringing  an  adulterous  woman  to  him,  that  he  might 
condemn  her  to  be  stoned,  according  to  the  Mosaic 
law:  "Now  Moses  in  the  law  commanded  us,  that 
such  should  be  stoned :  but  what  sayest  thou  ?  This 
they  said,  tempting  him,  that  they  might  have  to 
accuse  him."  John  too,  tells  us  of  the  attempt  made 
at  Jerusalem  to  stone  our  Saviour :  "  Then  took  they 
up  stones  to  cast  at  him :  but  Jesus  hid  himself,  and 
went  out  of  the  temple,  going  through  the  midst  of 
them,  and  so  passed  by."  So  too,  John  speaks  of 
another  effort  to  kill  Jesus,  at  the  Feast  of  the  Dedi- 
cation :  "  Then  the  Jews  took  up  stones  again  to  stone 
22 


254  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

him.  Jesus  answered  them,  Many  good  works  have 
I  showed  you  from  my  Father.  .  .  .  Therefore  they 
sought  again  to  take  him ;  but  he  escaped  out  of  their 
hand,  and  went  away  again  beyond  Jordan,  into  the 
place  where  John  first  baptized;  and  there  he  abode." 
The  plain  inference  is,  that  he  went  thus  far  away  to 
find  a  place  of  safety.  John  too,  tells  how  the  chief 
priests  and  Pharisees  held  a  council  to  consult  what 
could  be  done  against  Christ ;  and  he  adds,  "  Then 
from  that  day  forth,  they  took  counsel  together  for  to 
put  him  to  death."  John  too,  tells  us  that  after  the 
raising  of  Lazarus,  the  Jews  were  so  exasperated  that 
they  determined  to  put  him  also  to  death:  "But  the 
chief  priests  consulted,  that  they  might  put  Lazarus 
also  to  death;  because  that  by  reason  of  him,  many 
of  the  Jews  went  away,  and  believed  on  Jesus."  The 
adverb  also  plainly  points  to  Christ,  and  shows  that 
they  consulted  about  slaying  him,  before  they  con- 
sulted about  Lazarus. 

John  has  therefore  mentioned  eight  occasions  on 
wThich  either  an  effort  was  made  or  a  desire  expressed 
to  destroy  our  Lord.  This  testimony  is  peculiarly 
valuable,  as  showing  that  the  wish  to  put  Jesus  to 
death  had  long  burned  in  the  malignant  hearts  of 
Caiaphas  and  his  wicked  associates.  It  is  peculiarly 
valuable,  as  corroborating  the  statements  of  Matthew 
and  Mark,  and  yet  doing  it  in  such  a  way  that  it  is 
impossible  to  suspect  collusion.  Nothing  could  be 
more  absurd  than  to  suppose  that  in  recording  the 
several  attempts  upon  the  life  of  his  Master,  John  was 


OF   CHRIST.  255 

thinking  of  supporting  the  declaration  that  "the  chief 
priests  and  elders,  and  all  the  council,  sought  false 
witness  against  Jesus  to  put  him  to  death."  John's 
narrative  is  too  natural  to  admit  any  such  extravagant 
hypothesis;  he  evidently  relates  his  incidents  for 
their  own  intrinsic  importance,  and  not  with  the  secret 
design  of  harmonizing  with  the  accounts  of  the  first 
two  Evangelists.  No  story  was  ever  more  free  than 
that  of  John  from  all  appearance  of  having  extrane- 
ous matter  violently  foisted  in,  with  some  ulterior 
object  in  view. 

55.  Now,  suppose  that  two  witnesses  deposed  to 
the  fact,  that  C.  and  certain  of  his  abandoned  associ- 
ates had  made  an  attempt  upon  the  life  of  J.  And 
suppose  that  a  third  witness,  testifying  about  a  totally 
different  matter,  mentioned  eight  occasions  in  which 
the  same  wicked  wretches  had  either  tried  to  kill  J.,  or 
had  expressed  a  wish  to  see  him  slain.  Would  not  such 
an  unintentional  confirmation  of  the  allegations  of  the 
first  two  witnesses  be  regarded  by  any  intelligent 
jury  as  completely  establishing  their  truthfulness? 

Luke  has  not  told  us  as  much  as  John,  about  the 
previously  expressed  wish  of  the  Jewish  rulers  to  slay 
Christ ;  still,  he  has  said  enough  to  make  his  narra- 
tive consistent  with  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and 
Mark.  He  tells  us  that  when  our  Saviour  healed  a 
man  'with  a  withered  hand  on  the  Sabbath-day,  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  "  were  filled  with  madness ;  and 
communed  with  one  another  what  they  might  do  to 
Jesus."     He  tells  us  that  when  our  Lord  had  rebuked 


256  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

the  hypocrisy  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  were 
dining  with  him  in  the  house  of  a  certain  Pharisee, 
they  "began  to  urge  him  vehemently,  and  to  provoke 
him  to  speak  of  many  things ;  laying  wait  for  him, 
and  seeking  to  catch  something  out  of  his  mouth." 
Here  is  exhibited  exactly  the  same  trick  that  was 
shown  on  his  trial — the  same  mean,  ungenerous  arti- 
fice to  entrap  him  into  saying  something  to  his  own 
ruin.  Luke  tells  us  that  after  Christ  had  driven  the 
traders  out  of  the  temple,  uthe  chief  priests,  and 
scribes,  and  chief  of  the  people  sought  to  destroy  him, 
and  could  not  find  what  they  might  do :  for  all  the 
people  were  very  attentive  to  hear  him."  There  was 
murder  in  the  hearts  of  the  rulers  of  the  Jews,  and 
they  were  restrained  from  its  commission  solely  by 
fear.  Luke  tells  us  that  when  our  Lord  had  ended 
the  parable  of  the  wicked  husbandmen,  "the  chief 
priests  and  scribes  the  same  hour  sought  to  lay  hands 
on  him :  and  they  feared  the  people :  for  they  per- 
ceived that  he  had  spoken  this  parable  against  them." 
Luke  tells  us  how  the  Pharisees  sought  to  entangle 
him  in  his  talk,  by  their  crafty  questions  about  the 
lawfulness  of  paying  tribute.  "And  they  watched 
him,  and  sent  forth  spies,  which  should  feign  them- 
selves just  men,  that  they  might  take  hold  of  his 
words,  that  so  they  might  deliver  him  unto  the  power 
and  authority  of  the  governor."  This  statement  of 
Luke  not  only  corresponds  to  what  Matthew  and 
Mark  tell  us  of  the  cunning  effort  to  make  Jesus  con- 
vict himself,  but  it  explains  several  other  matters  that 


OF   CHRIST.  257 

are  otherwise  obscure.  For  instance,  it  satisfactorily 
accounts  for  the  presence  of  Roman  soldiery  in  the 
party  which  arrested  Christ.  It  shows  that  the  great 
aim  was  to  get  our  Saviour  in  the  power  of  the  Ro- 
mans for  some  alleged  violation  of  Roman  law;  so 
that  his  rescue  by  the  common  people  would  be  impos- 
sible, and  so  that  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  would  not 
have  the  odium  of  his  murder.  We  propose  to  make 
hereafter,  a  still  more  important  use  of  the  foregoing 
declaration  of  Luke.  For  the  present,  we  employ  it 
merely  as  harmonizing  with  the  accounts  of  Matthew 
and  Mark. 

Luke  tells  us  that  when  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  drew  nigh,  "  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  sought 
how  they  might  kill  him:  for  they  feared  the  people." 

We  see  that  Luke  has  not,  like  John,  told  of  mur- 
derous assaults  upon  Christ,  through  the  instigation 
of  the  chief  priests,  scribes,  and  elders.  We  have 
left  out  the  attempt  at  Nazareth  against  the  life  of 
our  Lord,  for  we  have  no  proof  that  the  Jewish  rulers 
suggested  it.  We  are  rather  inclined  to  think  that  it 
was  the  spontaneous  movement  of  the  common  people. 
We  have  also  left  out  of  our  summary  from  Luke, 
several  conversations  which  were  held  with  Jesus, 
more  for  the  purpose  of  annoying  and  perplexing 
him,  than  of  getting  some  dangerous  confession  from 
him. 

After  making  these  deductions,  the  extracts  from 
Luke  are  sufficiently  copious  to  show  that  the  Jewish 
rulers  had  often  exhibited  the  very  same  temper  of 
21* 


258  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

mind  and  disposition  of  heart,  which  prompted  them 
to  call  in  false  witnesses  during  the  trial  before  Caia- 
phas.  The  extracts  show,  moreover,  that  it  had  long 
been  a  favourite  scheme  with  the  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees, to  get  Christ  transferred  to  the  hands  of  the 
Roman  governor. 

56.  The  omission  of  Luke  to  notice  the  bringing 
in  of  false  witnesses,  makes  a  strong  point  in  favour 
of  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses.  It  shows  plainly, 
that  there  was  no  collusion  between  him  and  the  first 
two  Evangelists;  it  proves  that  the  three  had  not 
concerted  together  a  consistent  story ;  and  yet  there 
is  in  their  several  accounts,  that  sort  of  agreement 
which  carries  the  most  sure  conviction  of  truthfulness 
to  the  minds  of  intelligent  jurors.  Matthew  and  Mark 
tell  of  a  wish  to  destroy  Christ,  and  of  a  base,  under- 
handed method  employed  to  effect  his  destruction. 
Luke  shows  us  that  the  wish  was  no  stranger  to  the 
bosoms  of  the  chief  priests,  scribes,  and  elders,  and 
that  there  was  no  species  of  meanness  which  they 
would  not  be  guilty  of  to  gratify  their  malice. 

The  question  might  here  be  asked,  Had  Jesus  at 
any  time  used  language  at  all  like  that  which  the 
false  witnesses  ascribed  to  him  ?  The  Evangelists  who 
speak  of  the  false  witnesses,  are  entirely  silent  on  this 
point.  Luke  too,  gives  us  no  clue  to  our  inquiry; 
and  we  might,  but  for  the  testimony  of  John,  have 
concluded  that  it  was  out  and  out  a  manufactured 
tale.  But  from  him  we  learn,  that  in  the  first  year 
of  our  Lord's  ministry,  after  he  had  driven  the  traders 


OF   CHRIST.  259 

out  of  the  temple,  the  Jews  came  to  him,  saying, 
"What  sign  showest  thou  unto  us,  seeing  that  thou 
doest  these  things?  Jesus  answered  them,  Destroy 
this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up. 
Then  said  the  Jews,  Forty  and  six  years  was  this 
temple  in  building,  and  wilt  thou  rear  it  up  in  three 
days?  But  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body." 
From  this  it  appears  that  Jesus  did  really  declare  his 
ability  to  raise  up  a  temple  in  three  days,  and  it  would 
seem  that  the  Jews  understood  him  to  refer  to  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem.  How  then  could  that  witness, 
who  testified  to  Christ's  declaration  of  his  power  to 
build  up  the  temple,  be  called  a  false  witness  ?  If  he 
really  understood  Jesus  to  refer  to  the  temple  of  God, 
and  not  to  the  temple  of  his  body,  he  was  a  mistaken 
witness,  but  surely  not  a  false  witness.  Did  he  really 
misapprehend  the  meaning  of  our  Saviour  ?  Did  the 
Jews  really  misapprehend  his  words  ?  Now,  it  is  very 
remarkable,  that  the  only  Evangelist  who  records  this 
speech  of  our  Saviour,  leaves  us  in  entire  ignorance 
as  to  whether  he  was  understood  or  not,  while  Mat- 
thew, who  does  not  record  it,  makes  it  clear  that  the 
Jews  were  fully  apprised  of  the  mystic  import  of  our 
Lord's  words.  Matthew  says,  "Now  the  next  day, 
that  followed  the  day  of  the  preparation,  the  chief 
priests  and  Pharisees  came  together  unto  Pilate,  say- 
ing, Sir,  we  remember  that  that  deceiver  said,  while 
he  was  yet  alive,  After  three  days  I  will  rise  again. 
Command  therefore  that  the  sepulchre  be  made  sure 
until  the  third  day,  lest  his  disciples  come  by  night 


260  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

and  steal  him  away,  and  say  unto  the  people,  He  is 
risen  from  the  dead :  so  the  last  error  shall  be  worse 
than  the  first." 

It  is  evident  from  this  passage  that  the  Jews  did 
not  misunderstand  Christ.  They  knew  that  he  alluded 
to  the  temple  of  his  body,  and  therefore  they  came  to 
Pilate,  that  they  might  falsify  his  words,  and  show 
that  he  was  not  able  to  raise  it  up  in  three  days. 
Matthew  could  therefore,  with  great  propriety,  call 
him  a  false  witness,  who  had  truly  reported  the  words 
of  Christ.  The  essence  of  falsehood  consists  in  the 
intention  to  deceive.  One  may  use  true  language, 
and  yet,  by  a  jesting  or  an  ironical  manner,  produce 
a  false  impression.  The  witness  knew  the  significance 
of  Jesus'  words ;  but  while  truly  reporting  them,  he 
aimed  to  make  his  hearers  believe  that  they  had 
another  meaning.  He  was  therefore  guilty  of  lying, 
and  is  appropriately  designated  as  a  false  witness. 

57.  A  review  of  our  testimony  shows  that  John 
most  admirably  supplements  the  first  two  Evangelists, 
by  recording  language  of  our  Saviour,  similar  to  that 
attributed  to  him  by  the  false  witnesses.  Moreover, 
we  find,  by  a  careful  examination  of  Matthew,  that 
the  Jews  did  not  misunderstand  the  meaning  of  Jesus, 
and  therefore  a  second  reason  is  afforded  us,  in  addi- 
tion to  that  already  given,  why  the  witnesses  are 
called  false. 

We  will  pause  here  a  moment  to  comment  upon  the 
natural  stroke  which  the  Evangelists  give  us,  touch- 
ing the  Jewish  character  as  exhibited  on  the  trial  of 


OF   CHRIST.  261 

Christ.  A  reference  to  all  that  is  known  of  Phari- 
saism, especially  to  what  our  Lord  has  said  of  it  in  his 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  shows  that  its  wickedness  con- 
sisted in  perversion  of  truth.  It  never  inculcated  the 
wrong  directly,  but  always  twisted  and  distorted  the 
right.  It  never  taught  anything  diametrically  opposed 
to  the  Scriptures ;  but  by  forced  interpretations  and 
unnatural  constructions,  it  always  "made  the  com- 
mandment of  God  of  none  effect."  It  was  tenderly 
scrupulous  with  regard  to  the  letter  of  the  fact,  but  in 
spirit,  it  partook  of  the  temper  and  disposition  of  the 
Father  of  all  lies  and  deceit.  And  so  Ave  doubt  not 
that  the  Pharisees  wished  their  suborned  witnesses  to 
tell  that  which  was  literally  true,  but  which  would 
convey  an  impression  altogether  erroneous.  The  false 
witnesses,  however,  had  not  learned  their  part  well, 
and  unfortunately  made  a  verbal  discrepancy  in  their 
statements.  It  was  this  want  of  verbal  accuracy 
which  so  nonplussed  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  They 
would  have  cared  nothing  about  the  lie  in  fact,  had 
there  been  no  disagreement  in  word.  But  their 
strangely  constituted  consciences  could  not  bear  any- 
thing that  look  like  a  lingual  difference  in  the  evi- 
dence. They,  therefore,  regretted  the  testimony  of 
the  false  witnesses,  and  proceeded  to  invent  some 
other  pretext  for  the  condemnation  of  Jesus,  accord- 
ing to  the  letter  of  the  law. 

We  will  develope  this  subject  more  fully  hereafter; 
for  the  present,  we  wish  merely  to  call  attention  to 
this  delicate  stroke  of  the  Evangelists.     They  have, 


262  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

■with  a  few  off-hand  touches,  given  us  a  finished  por- 
trait of  Pharisaism,  and  yet  they  were  evidently 
ignorant  themselves  of  the  perfection  of  their  picture. 
The  natural  descriptions  of  character  so  frequently 
met  with  in  the  Scriptures,  are  of  infinite  value  in 
establishing  their  divine  origin.  It  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive how  any  one  who  has  noticed  the  nice  harmony 
of  proportions  and  adjustment  of  parts  in  the  biblical 
representations  of  sects  and  individuals,  can  resist  the 
belief  that  they  were  suggested  and  dictated  by  the 
Spirit  of  God. 

We  have  seen  that  Matthew  is  the  only  Evangelist 
who  informs  us  of  Caiaphas  putting  our  Saviour  on 
his  oath,  that  he  might  extort  from  him  a  confession 
that  would  afford  ground  for  his  condemnation.  This 
act  of  the  high-priest  manifests  an  intensity  of  zeal 
for  our  Lord's  destruction — an  earnestness  of  deter- 
mination to  sacrifice  him  at  all  hazards,  which  Mat- 
thew has  nowhere  accounted  for.  But,  on  turning  to 
John,  the  conduct  of  the  high-priest  is  most  fully 
explained.  We  there  learn  that  he  was  inflamed  with 
the  madness  of  fanaticism.  John  tells  us,  that  after 
the  raising  of  Lazarus  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees 
were  much  troubled,  and  held  a  council  to  consider 
what  was  to  be  done.  While  they  were  discussing 
ways  and  means  to  destroy  Christ,  "one  of  them, 
named  Caiaphas,  being  the  high-priest  that  same  year, 
said  unto  them,  Ye  know  nothing  at  all,  nor  consider 
that  it  is  expedient  for  us,  that  one  man  should  die 
for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not. 


OF   CHRIST.  263 

And  this  spake  he  not  of  himself;  but  being  the  high- 
priest  that  year,  he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die 
for  that  nation ;  and  not  for  that  nation  only,  but  that 
also  he  should  gather  together  in  one,  the  children  of 
God  that  were  scattered  abroad."  It  appears  from 
this,  that  God  so  far  honoured  the  office  of  high-priest, 
as  to  give  even  the  wicked  Caiaphas  some  glimmering 
of  the  truth  in  regard  to  the  mission  of  his  Son.  But 
having  given  the  revelation,  he  left  the  malignant 
creature  to  interpret  it  according  to  the  dictates  of 
his  own  corrupt  heart.  And  we  have,  accordingly,  a 
remarkable  instance  of  the  hardening  effect  of  unsanc- 
tified  religious  knowledge.  The  necessity  for  a  victim 
was  construed  by  Caiaphas  into  the  right  to  sacrifice 
the  victim.  This  was  his  first  serious  error,  and  the 
next  followed  as  a  matter  of  course,  viz.,  that  any 
means  were  lawful  to  secure  the  sacrifice. 

That  we  have  put  the  right  construction  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  high-priest,  is  evident  from  the  com- 
ment of  John  upon  Christ's  being  brought  before 
him.  "Now,  Caiaphas  was  he  which  gave  counsel  to 
the  Jews,  that  it  was  expedient  that  one  man  should 
die  for  the  people."  John  here  intimates  that  the 
issue  of  the  trial  could  not  be  doubtful,  because 
Caiaphas  had  prejudged,  and  precondemned  his  pri- 
soner. He  intimates  that  nothing  but  a  sentence 
of  death  could  be  expected  from  a  judge  who  had 
previously  expressed  the  opinion,  that  it  was  expedi- 
ent for  the  good  of  the  nation,  that  the  very  man 
should  die,  who  was  now  arraigned  before  him. 


264  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

And  so  Dupin,  the  learned  French  counsellor,  has 
interpreted  the  language  of  John.  His  words  are: 
"  This  was  that  same  Caiaphas,  who,  if  he  had  intended 
to  remain  a  judge,  was  evidently  liable  to  objection ; 
for  in  the  preceding  assemblage  he  had  made  himself 
the  accuser  of  Jesus.  Even  before  he  had  seen  or 
heard  Him,  he  declared  him  to  be  deserving  of  death. 
He  said  to  his  colleagues,  that  it  was  expedient  that 
one  man  should  die  for  all.  Such  being  the  opinion 
of  Caiaphas,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  if  he  shows 
partiality." — Trial  of  Jesus.  By  M.  Dupin,  Advocate 
and  Doctor  of  Laws. 

The  impatience  of  Caiaphas  to  condemn  Jesus,  his 
undignified  conduct  as  judge,  his  unworthy  attempts 
to  entrap  his  prisoner,  his  resort  to  an  expedient  to 
get  his  prisoner  criminate  himself — all  these  are  now 
fully  explained.  The  enthusiasm  of  the  zealot,  the 
intolerance  of  the  fanatic,  the  persecuting  spirit  of  the 
bigot,  goad  him  on  to  madness  and  fury.  In  a  sort 
of  prophetic  phrensy,  he  had  long  before  determined 
that  Jesus  should  die ;  and  now  he  is  resolved  to  leave 
no  effort  untried  which  may  lead  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  his  cherished  wishes. 

58.  The  intemperate  zeal  and  mean  artifices  of  the 
high-priest,  as  recorded  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  are 
most  satisfactorily  accounted  for  by  the  above  hint  in 
John.  But  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  John  alluded 
to  the  prophecy  of  Caiaphas  with  any  such  intention. 
No  allusion  was  ever  made  more  naturally,  none  had 
ever  less  the  appearance  of  a  covert  intention  con- 


OF    CEBIST.  200 

nected  with  it.  And  yet  without  it  the  conduct  of 
Caiaphas  would  be  wholly  inexplicable,  and  we  would 
be  constrained  to  think  that  Matthew  and  Mark  had 
drawn  a  most  unlikely  portrait  of  the  highest  officer 
known  to  the  Jewish  theocracy. 

We  will  now  proceed  with  the  account  of  the  trial, 
as  given  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  former  tells  us 
that  Jesus  responded  to  the  adjuration  of  the  high- 
priest  in  these  words :  "  Thou  hast  said :  nevertheless, 
I  say  unto  you,  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son  of  Man 
sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven.  Then  the  high-priest  rent  his 
clothes,  saying,  He  hath  spoken  blasphemy:  what 
further  need  have  we  of  witnesses  ?  Behold,  now  ye 
have  heard  his  blasphemy.  What  think  ye  ?  They 
answered  and  said,  He  is  guilty  of  death." 

The  expression,  "Thou  hast  said,"  is  of  doubtful 
meaning,  and  we  would  be  at  a  loss  how  to  interpret 
it  without  the  aid  of  Mark's  Gospel.  But  we  there 
find  the  equivalent  expression  to  be,  "lam."  Jesus 
then  acknowledged  his  Messiahship  before  the  highest 
sacerdotal  officer,  as  he  afterwards  did  his  kingly 
authority  before  Pilate,  the  highest  civil  officer  in  the 
country.  With  the  deepest  reverence  we  would  say, 
that  it  is  evident  therefore  that  the  silence  of  our 
blessed  Redeemer  did  not  proceed  from  either  ob- 
stinacy or  want  of  courage.  How  then  are  we  to 
account  for  it?  The  two  Evangelists  who  tell  of  his 
refusal  to  speak,  give  us  no  explanation  of  this  extra- 
ordinary conduct.     We  might  have   inferred  that  it 


266  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

proceeded  from  an  unwillingness  to  criminate  himself; 
and  so  it  in  part  may  be  attributed  to  that  cause. 
But  he  might  have  refuted  the  testimony  of  the  false 
witnesses,  without  saying  anything  to  his  own  dis- 
paragement. It  was  his  right  unquestionably,  accord- 
ing to  our  ideas  of  justice,  to  hold  his  peace ;  but  his 
speaking  or  not  would  be  determined  by  the  expe- 
diency of  the  case.  Now  we  cannot  learn  from 
Matthew  and  Mark,  whether  it  would  have  been  ad- 
visable for  our  Lord  to  make  a  defence ;  but  on  refer- 
ence to  Luke,  the  inutility  of  a  defence  is  clearly  set 
forth.  This  Evangelist  tells  us  that  when  Caiaphas 
asked  him,  "Art  thou  the  Christ?"  he  answered,  "If 
I  tell  you,  ye  will  not  believe.  And  if  I  also  ask  you, 
ye  will  not  answer  me,  nor  let  me  go." 

Three  things  are  here  stated — that  they  would  not 
believe  him,  that  they  would  not  answer  him,  and  that 
they  would  not  let  him  go.  Leaving  out  of  considera- 
tion for  a  moment  the  second  point,  we  will  notice  the 
first  and  third.  The  first  charges  the  Jews  with  con- 
firmed, hopeless,  obstinate  unbelief,  and  therefore 
argues  the  uselessness  of  any  reply.  The  third 
charges  the  Jews  with  a  predetermination  to  put  him 
to  death.  No  demonstration  of  his  innocence  would 
satisfy  his  prejudiced  and  bloodthirsty  judges,  nothing 
could  induce  them  to  let  him  go ;  and  hence  the  ab- 
surdity of  making  a  defence. 

So  we  see  that  Luke  incidentally  confirms  what 
John  had  directly  declared,  in  regard  to  the  previ- 
ously formed  judgment  of  Caiaphas.     The  confirma- 


OF    CHRIST.  267 

tion  is  just  as  explicit  as  though  Luke  had  said,  in  so 
many  words,  that  Caiaphas  had  resolved  upon  the 
death  of  Christ  before  he  was  arraigned  at  the  bar. 
But  the  undesigned  manner  in  which  the  confirmation 
is  made,  adds  infinitely  to  its  importance.  Every 
impartial  and  enlightened  jury  in  the  world  regards 
these  casual  correspondences  of  testimony  as  the  high- 
est form  of  proof  of  the  truthfulness  of  witnesses. 

59.  Reviewing  the  evidence,  we  notice  that  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  tell  us  of  a  most  inexplicable  refusal 
of  our  Lord  to  say  anything  in  vindication  of  himself. 
Luke  shows  us  that  his  silence  was  in  consequence  of 
his  knowledge  of  the  confirmed  and  hopeless  infidelity 
of  the  Jewish  rulers,  and  of  their  having  pre-judged 
his  case.  John  confirms  what  Luke  says  of  the  pre- 
judgment, by  telling  us  that  the  presiding  officer  of 
the  tribunal  which  thought  our  Lord  worthy  of  death, 
had  actually  expressed  a  wish  for  his  sacrifice,  long 
before  his  most  unrighteous  trial.  Were  it  possible 
to  collect  all  the  testimony  given  in  all  the  courts  on 
earth,  there  would  not  be  found  nicer  harmony.  And 
yet  nothing  could  be  more  preposterous  than  to  think 
that  this  harmony  was  the  result  of  an  effort  on  the 
part  of  the  four  Evangelists  to  make  their  narratives 
tally  (as  Paley  expresses  it)  with  one  other.  In  truth, 
the  agreement  has  been  shown  to  exist,  where  there  is 
the  greatest  lack  of  verbal  conformity ;  and  the  cor- 
respondences have  been  made  manifest  in  the  midst 
of  the  greatest  seeming  discrepancies.  The  man  who 
can   believe   that   fabulists  would   disguise   accordant 


268  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

statements,  so  that  a  rigid  examination  alone  can 
reveal  their  accordance,  is  prepared  to  believe  any 
absurdity  whatever. 

There  is  another  undesigned  agreement,  which  we 
wish  to  be  observed,  though  we  will  not  make  a  sepa- 
rate point  of  it.  John  is  very  brief  in  his  account  of 
the  trial  before  Caiaphas ;  still  he  harmonizes  in  one 
essential  particular  with  the  other  three  Evangelists. 
He  tells  us  that  the  high-priest  asked  Jesus  "of  his 
disciples  and  his  doctrine."  This  corresponds  exactly 
with  what  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke  affirm,  in  regard 
to  the  repeated  attempts  of  Caiaphas  to  draw  Jesus 
out,  and  to  entrap  him  into  a  confession. 

But  we  return  from  this  digression,  to  inquire  what 
our  Lord  meant,  by  saying,  "And  if  I  also  ask  you, 
ye  will  not  answer  me."  As  they  had  been  asking 
him  about  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed,  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  his  question  to  them  would 
have  referred  to  the  same  being.  We  might  then 
conjecture  that  our  Lord  meant  to  signify  that  he 
might,  with  propriety,  decline  to  answer  any  question 
touching  the  Messiah,  since  they  themselves  would 
decline  to  be  interrogated  about  the  person,  claims, 
and  office  of  the  expected  but  mysterious  Redeemer 
of  Israel.  What  reason  had  our  Saviour  to  suppose 
that  Caiaphas  and  his  associates  would  refuse  to  tell 
him  what  sort  of  a  being  they  looked  for  in  the  pro- 
mised deliverer  ?  Had  they  ever  refused  to  express 
their  opinion  on  this  subject,  on  any  previous  occa- 
sion?    On  referring  to  the  twenty-second  chapter  of 


OF    CHRIST,  269 

Luke,  we  find  that  on  a  certain  day,  "  the  Sadducees, 
which  deny  that  there  is  any  resurrection,"  came  to 
our  Lord  with  what  they  supposed  would  be  a  very 
perplexing  question.  He  answered  it,  however,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  confound  and  silence  them.  So 
pleased  were  the  Scribes  at  the  silencing  of  their  old 
adversaries,  the  Sadducees,  that  they  even  deigned 
to  compliment  Jesus,  saying,  "Master,  thou  hast  well 
said."  Immediately  after  this,  "He  said  unto  them, 
How  say  they  that  Christ  is  David's  son  ?  And  David 
himself  saith  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  The  Lord  said 
unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  till  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool.  David  therefore  calleth 
him  Lord;  how  is  he  then  his  son?" 

We  are  not  told  here  directly,  to  whom  our  Lord 
directed  his  interrogatory,  nor  yet  what  effect  it  had 
upon  his  audience.  We  might  suppose  that  it  was 
addressed  to  the  Scribes,  and  that  they  were  unable 
to  make  any  reply,  since  none  is  given.  From  Mark, 
we  learn  that  the  question  was  proposed  for  the 
Scribes,  if  not  to  them ;  "  and  Jesus  answered  while 
he  taught  in  the  temple,  How  say  the  Scribes  that 
Christ  is  the  son  of  David?  For  David  himself 
saith,"  &c.  Neither  does  Mark  inform  us  of  any 
answer,  but  still  we  could  not  certainly  conclude  that 
none  was  made.  Matthew,  however,  leaves  us  no 
room  to  inquire  who  were  the  persons  challenged,  nor 

whether  they  were  able  to  explain  the  difficulty the 

same  which  puzzles   Socinianism  at  the  present  day  : 
"But   when   the   Pharisees    had    heard   that   he   had 


270  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

put  the  Sadducees  to  silence,  they  were  gathered 
together.  .  .  .  While  the  Pharisees  were  gathered 
together,  Jesus  asked  them,  saying,  What  think  ye 
of  Christ  ?  Whose  son  is  he  ?  ...  And  no  man  was 
able  to  answer  him  a  word;  neither  durst  any  man, 
from  that  day  forth,  ask  him  any  more  questions." 

We  have,  in  these  separate  statements  of  the  three 
Evangelists,  a  fine  specimen  of  concurrent,  yet  inde- 
pendent testimony.  Mark  supplies  an  omission  of 
Luke,  and  Matthew  supplies  an  omission  of  Mark. 
Moreover,  the  verbal  discrepancy  between  Mark  and 
Matthew  is  in  itself  a  beautiful  harmony.  The  latter 
says  that  Christ  propounded  his  question  to  the  Pha- 
risees; the  former  says  that  he  propounded  it  to  the 
Scribes.  In  this  there  is  perfect  agreement ;  for  the 
Scribes  belonged  to  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees.  But 
all  points  of  the  law  and  theological  questions  were 
referred  appropriately  to  the  Scribes,  as  the  chosen 
expounders  of  the  Scriptures.  While  Matthew  and 
Mark  are  therefore  both  right,  the  latter,  in  designat- 
ing the  Scribes,  is  more  minutely  accurate  than  the 
former. 

We  pause  a  moment  to  notice  how  little  our  blessed 
Lord  was  influenced  by  considerations  of  worldly 
policy.  At  the  very  moment  when  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  had  gathered  together  to  congratulate  him 
upon  his  victory  over  the  Sadducees ;  at  the  very 
moment  when  they  paid  him  their  first  and  only  com- 
pliment, he  turned  upon  them,  and  confounded  them 
likewise,    by    asking   them    to    explain   the    two-fold 


OF   CHRIST.  271 

nature   of  the   Messiah.     Here   was    an  opportunity 
offered  him  of  conciliating  the  friendship,  and  gaming 
the  support  of  the  most  powerful  sect  among  the  Jews, 
numbering  among  its  members,  rulers  and  interpret- 
ers  of   the  law,  the  learned,   the  wealthy,   and   the 
influential.     But  our  Lord  was  no  time-serving  seeker 
of  popularity.     The  approbation  of  God,  and  not  the 
favour  of  man,  was  the  great  wish  of  his  heart,  the 
great  aim  of  his  life ;  and  therefore,  instead  of  court- 
ing the  good-will  of  the  Pharisees,  he  availed  himself 
of  the  opportunity  of  their  being  gathered  together, 
to  warn  the  people  in  their  presence,  of  their  errors. 
Does  this   seem   captious   conduct?     Let  the  reader 
remember  that  the  Jewish  people  belonged  generally 
to  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  great  sects  of  the  Pha- 
risees and  Sadducees.     Our  Saviour's  silencing  of  the 
latter   would  have   produced   the  impression  that  he 
favoured  the  former,  had  he  not  taken  occasion  to 
warn  the  multitude  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Pharisees 
were  no  less  pernicious  than  the  heresies  of  the  Sad- 
ducees.    Therefore,  when  the   exulting  Scribes  came 
around  him  with  their  specious  flattery,  he  said  to  his 
audience,  "  Beware  of  the  Scribes,  which  love  to  go  in 
long  clothing,    and  love    salutations    in  the  market- 
places, and  the  chief  seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  the 
uppermost    rooms   at  feasts:    which    devour   widows' 
houses,  and  for  a  pretence  make  long  prayers :  these 
shall  receive  greater  damnation." 

Here  is  honesty  in  the  great  Teacher,  rising  above 
the  seductions  of  flattery,  the  suggestions  of  policy, 


272  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

the  considerations  of  self-interest,  and  the  promptings 
of  fear.  May  every  religious  teacher  be  inspired  with 
the  same  disinterested  zeal  for  the  truth,  and  keep 
not  back  any  of  the  whole  counsel  of  God ! 

In  order  to  discover  what  our  Lord  meant  by  say- 
ing, "And  if  I  ask  you  also,  ye  will  not  answer  me," 
we  have  gone  back  in  his  history,  and  called  in  the 
first  three  Evangelists  to  explain  the  expression;  and 
we  have  found  that  they  tell  us  of  an  actual  refusal 
of  the  Jews  to  answer  our  Lord  when  he  questioned 
them  about  the  Messiah,  as  they  were  now  question- 
ing him  on  his  trial.  It  is  manifest  that  our  Saviour's 
words  refer  to  this  refusal,  and  that  he  gives  it  as  a 
reason  for  refusing  to  answer  them:  "Ye  will  not 
answer  me,  when  I  ask  you  about  the  Messiah — why 
may  I  not  decline  to  answer  you,  when  you  question 
me  on  the  same  subject?  Ye  will  not  tell  me,  if  I  ask 
you,  what  sort  of  a  being  you  expect  the  Christ  to 
be — how  then  can  I  convince  you  that  I  am  the 
Christ?" 

60.  The  account  given  us  by  the  first  three  Evan- 
gelists, of  our  Lord's  controversy  with  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  explains  an  otherwise  obscure  phrase  used 
by  him  on  his  trial;  and  we  hold  it  to  be  utterly  idle 
to  charge  these  writers  with  being  forgers,  and  making 
the  phrase  fit  the  account  of  the  controversy.  The 
coincidence  is  as  manifestly  undesigned,  as  it  is  possi- 
ble to  imagine  a  coincidence  to  be.  There  can  be  but 
one  rational  view  taken  of  it,  and  that  is,  that  the 
dispute  with    the  Jews,  and  their  refusal  to  an.  wer 


OF    CHRIST.      _  273 

Christ,  actually  happened;  and  that  he  had  this  in 
his  mind,  when  he  said,  "Ye  will  not  answer  me." 
Moreover,  in  showing  the  correspondence  between  the 
language   of  Christ,    and  an  occurrence,    alleged    to 

CD  CD  '  '  O 

have  taken  place,  we  found  several  other  undesigned 
agreements  among  the  witnesses,  in  their  statements 
with  regard  to  this  occurrence.  So  that  the  argu- 
ment, which  we  now  make,  does  not  rest  upon  a  single 
point  of  support,  but  upon  a  broad  and  stable  base. 

We  come  now,  in  the  regular  course  of  the  narra- 
tive, to  consider  more  attentively  the  language  already 
quoted  of  the  high-priest  to  the  council.  We  observe 
that  Matthew  and  Mark  record  it  somewhat  differ- 
ently. "  Then  the  high-priest  rent  his  clothes,  say- 
ing, He  hath  spoken  blasphemy;  what  further  need 
have  we  of  witnesses  ?  behold,  now,  ye  have  heard  his 
blasphemy.  What  think  ye?  They  answered,  and 
said,  he  is  guilty  of  death."  (Matthew.)  "Then  the 
high-priest  rent  his  clothes,  and  saith,  What  need  we 
any  further  witnesses  ?  ye  have  heard  the  blasphemy : 
what  think  ye  ?  And  they  all  condemned  him  to  be 
guilty  of  death."  (Mark.)  The  essential  point  of 
difference  in  these  parallel  statements  is,  that,  while 
Matthew  tells  us  that  the  council  merely  said  that  he 
is  guilty  of  death,  Mark  tells  us  that  the  council  con- 
demned him  to  be  guilty  of  death.  A  superficial 
examination  of  the  latter  Evangelist  has  led  most 
persons  into  the  belief,  that  the  council  formally 
passed  sentence  of  death  upon  our  Lord  in  the  house 
of  Caiaphas.     We  trust  to  be  able  to  prove  that  an 


274  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

informal  opinion  in  regard  to  his  worthiness  of  death, 
was  taken  on  the  night  of  his  trial ;  but  that  formal 
sentence  was  not  passed  until  next  morning,  and 
that  the  Court  was  then  sitting  in  the  Sanhedrim 
room  in  the  temple.  We  think  that  the  commonly 
received  opinion  of  but  one  sitting  of  the  court  is 
erroneous,  and  we  will  endeavour  to  prove  that  the 
preliminary  proceedings  were  held  in  the  house  of 
Caiaphas,  and  that  the  council  adjourned  to  its  appro- 
priate chamber  within  the  walls  of  the  temple,  to  pass 
sentence  of  death.  We  believe  that  Jewish  writers 
and  Christian  theologians  unanimously  agree  in  this, 
that,  according  to  the  Mosaic  code,  sentence  of  death 
could  not  be  passed  at  night.  (See  Dicpin  passim.) 
This  has  been  admitted  even  by  M.  Salvador,  the  ac- 
complished apologist  for  Caiaphas  and  his  associates. 
And  we  have  seen  that  the  high-priest,  in  every  in- 
stance, obeyed  the  letter  of  the  law,  though  entirely 
indifferent  about  violating  its  spirit.  Now,  as  the 
proceedings  in  his  palace  were  at  night,  it  is  not  at 
all  probable  that  Caiaphas  would  permit  any  depar- 
ture from  the  literal  requirements  of  written  law. 
It  is  also  conceded  that  meetings  of  the  Sanhedrim 
out  of  the  temple,  were  irregular.  Such  meetings 
might  be  held  on  extraordinary  emergencies,  for  the 
purpose  of  consultation.  (Matt.  xxvi.  3;)  but  we  have 
no  reason  to  believe  that  executive  business  was  ever 
transacted  out  of  the  room,  gazith,  in  the  temple  set 
apart  for  that  object.  The  condemnation  of  our 
Lord  by  night  in  the  palace  of  Caiaphas  would  then 


OF    CHRIST.  275 

have  involved  a  double  irregularity.  It  would  have 
been  both  out  of  time  and  out  of  place.  Now,  remem- 
ber that  the  council  was  made  up  chiefly,  if  not  en- 
tirely of  Pharisees — a  sect  which  made  its  boast  of 
keeping  the  whole  law  according  to  its  literal  con- 
struction. Is  it  likely  that  a  body  thus  constituted, 
would  have  twice  violated  the  letter  of  their  code  of 
jurisprudence  ?  So  far  do  the  recorded  proceedings 
come  short  of  encouraging  such  a  thought,  that  they 
actually  show  the  most  rigid  compliance  with  the 
requisitions  of  the  judicial  polity  of  the  Jewish  nation. 
Caiaphas  and  his  colleagues  acted  throughout  the  whole 
trial  of  Jesus  upon  the  principle,  that  however  unjust 
their  conduct  might  be,  it  should  at  least  be  lawful  in 
all  respects.  They  cared  not  how  outrageous  their 
proceedings  might  be,  provided  that  they  were  conso- 
nant with  the  prescribed  legal  forms.  Thousands 
feel  now,  in  this  nineteenth  century,  just  as  the  San- 
hedrim felt  then,  that  there  is  no  sin  in  a  wrong  com- 
mitted with  the  sanction  of  law. 

Our  first  reason,  then,  for  believing  that  no  formal 
sentence  was  passed  upon  Christ  in  the  palace  of 
Caiaphas,  is  founded  upon  our  knowledge  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  Sanhedrim.  It  was  composed  of  great 
sticklers  for  the  forms  of  the  law,  and  it  is  inconceiv- 
able that  they  would  so  grossly  violate  its  letter. 
Our  second  reason  is  deduced  from  the  language  of 
Caiaphas,  and  the  reply  of  his  associates.  Observe 
that  he  does  not  say,  What  is  your  sentence  ?  but, 
"What   think   ye?M  literally,   how   does   it   seem   to 


270  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

you  ?  We  doubt  not,  too,  that  the  expression,  "  they 
said,  He  is  guilty  of  death,"  of  Matthew,  is  exactly 
equivalent  to  the  expression,  athey  all  condemned 
him  to  be  guilty  of  death"  of  Mark.  The  word  ren- 
dered "guilty,"  signifies  really  liable,  or  obnoxious 
to  death.  And  so  the  word  rendered  "condemned," 
might  have  been  translated  judged,  decided,  or  thought. 
We  can,  therefore,  construe  Mark's  language  thus, 
"and  they  all  judged  him  to  be  obnoxious  to  death — 
they  all  decided  that  he  had  committed  an  offence 
worthy  of  death — they  all  thought  that  they  might 
justly  condemn  him."  But  this  Evangelist  does  not 
by  any  means  tell  us  that  they  did  actually  sen- 
tence him  to  die.  Give  the  utmost  latitude  to  the 
words  of  the  council,  and  we  have  nothing  more  than 
an  expression  of  opinion,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  might 
lawfully  be  condemned  for  blasphemy.  The  decision 
in  the  house  of  Caiaphas  corresponded  somewhat  to 
the  finding  of  a  true  bill  by  our  grand-juries,  and  the 
after  proceedings  in  the  room  gazith,  to  the  regular 
trial  by  the  court.  Or  we  may  compare  the  investi- 
gation in  the  palace  of  the  high-priest  to  the  trial ; 
and  the  subsequent  proceedings  to  the  arraignment 
of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  to  hear  the  sentence  of 
death  pronounced. 

The  view  that  has  just  been  given  of  two  sittings 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  removes  difficulties  that  have  long 
been  felt.  It  may  be  well  to  state  that  two  very 
opposite  opinions  have  been  held.  Calmet  and  others 
suppose  that   all  the  proceedings   against  our  Lord 


OF    CHRIST.  277 

were  in  the  council  chamber  in  the  temple,  and  that  it 
is  called  by  Caiaphas's  name,  simply  because  he  was 
the  presiding  officer.  To  this,  it  is  a  sufficient  answer 
that  Luke  uses  the  appropriate  word  (oikon)  to  desig- 
nate a  private  residence.  But  in  addition,  the  allu- 
sions to  the  court,  the  porch,  and  the  servants  of  the 
high-priest,  all  demonstrate  that  the  Sanhedrim  met, 
at  first,  in  the  building  occupied  by  Caiaphas  and  his 
famity.  There  is  another  and  much  larger  class  who 
hold  the  opinion  that  the  trial  of  our  Lord  began  and 
ended  in  the  palace  of  the  high-priest.  We  have 
already  given  two  reasons  for  thinking  differently, 
and  we  will  now  add  a  third,  which  we  think  ought 
to  be  decisive.  Matthew  tells  us  that  on  the  next 
morning,  "Judas,  which  had  betrayed  him,  when  he 
saw  that  he  was  condemned,  repented  himself,  and 
brought  again  the  thirty  pices  of  silver  to  the  chief 
priests  and  elders,  saying,  I  have  sinned  in  that  I  have 
betrayed  the  innocent  blood.  And  they  said,  What 
is  that  to  us  ?  See  thou  to  that.  And  he  cast  down 
the  pieces  of  silver  in  the  temple,"  &c. 

There  are  three  things  to  be  specially  noted  here ; 
this  transaction  was  on  the  morning  after  the  night- 
trial  before  Caiaphas ;  it  was  in  the  presence  of  the 
chief  priests  and  elders;  and  it  was  in  the  temple. 
Now,  we  do  not  think  it  at  all  probable,  that  men 
inflamed  as  were  the  chief  priests  and  elders,  with  the 
most  rancorous  hate  towards  our  Lord,  would  leave 
him  to  go  to  the  temple.  Dr.  Robinson,  Thomson, 
and  Barclay,  place  the  palace  of  Caiaphas  on  the 
24 


278  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

north-eastern  slope  of  Mount  Zion,  and  so  it  is  located 
in  Bagster's  map  and  in  the  Biblical  Atlas  of  the 
American  Sunday-school  Union.  We  presume,  there- 
fore, that  there  has  been  no  disagreement  between 
the  Greek  and  Latin  traditions,  with  respect  to  this 
spot,  however  much  they  may  have  differed  about 
other  localities.  If,  then,  our  Lord  was  not  taken  to 
the  room  gazith,  the  chief  priests  and  elders  whom 
Judas  met  in  the  temple,  must  have  left  their  victim 
on  Mount  Zion,  crossed  the  Tyropoeon,  or  valley  of 
cheese-mongers,  and  ascended  to  Mount  Moriah. 
Moreover,  Judas  on  one  hill  must  have  known  of  the 
condemnation  on  the  opposite  hill,  immediately  after 
it  happened — and  this  eighteen  hundred  years  before 
the  invention  of  the  telegraph. 

The  presence  of  the  chief  priests  and  elders  in  the 
temple,  and  the  prompt  acquaintance  of  Judas  with 
their  proceedings,  seem  sufficient  to  prove  that  Jesus 
had  been  brought  to  the  Sanhedrim  room,  to  hear 
his  most  unrighteous  judges  pronounce  his  sentence, 
according  to  the  due  forms  of  law.  We  are  far  from 
supposing  that  the  Evangelists  relate  the  events  in 
the  order  in  which  they  occurred.  But  it  is  plain 
that  Judas  must  have  come  to  the  temple  before  Jesus 
was  crucified,  else  Matthew,  instead  of  saying,  "  Judas 
when  he  saw  that  he  was  condemned,"  would  have 
said,  "Judas,  when  he  saw  that  he  was  crucified." 
And  it  is  equally  plain,  at  least  to  our  mind,  that 
the  malignant  chief  priests  and  elders  never  left 
their   victim,  until    they  heard  that  last  cry,   "It  is 


OF   CHRIST.  279 

finished."  Nay,  they  were  not  willing  to  leave  the 
inanimate  body  even  then,  until  they  had  gotten  a 
guard  to  watch  it !  How  utterly  improbable  is  it, 
then,  that  they  would  leave  their  living,  active  prisoner, 
in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  and  go  off  to  the  temple  on 
the  other  hill !  Their  hate  was  too  bitter  to  permit 
this ;  their  fear  of  Him,  who  had  escaped  out  of  their 
hands  so  often,  was  too  great  to  permit  this.  But  we 
know  certainly  that  they  were  in  the  temple  soon 
after  the  condemnation  of  Jesus,  therefore  we  know 
with  almost  equal  certainty  that  he  was  there  also. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE    MALTREATMENT    OF    JESUS. 

We  have  made  these  remarks  preparatory  to  our 
return  to  the  record  of  Luke.  The  63d  verse  of  his 
twenty-second  chapter  reads  thus,  "And  the  men  that 
held  Jesus  mocked  him,  and  smote  him." 

Now  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  Matthew  and  Mark 
place  the  maltreatment  of  Jesus  after  the  opinion  had 
been  expressed  by  the  council,  that  "he  was  guilty 
of  death."  Luke,  however,  seems  to  place  the  mal- 
treatment before  that  expression  of  opinion.  The  dis- 
crepancy is  easily  reconciled  upon  the  hypothesis  of 
two  sittings  of  the  Sanhedrim.  Luke  passes  over  the 
preliminary  trial  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  and  records 
only  the  more  formal  proceedings  in  the  room  gazith, 


280  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

of  the  temple.  Matthew  and  Mark  relate  the  trial 
in  the  palace  of  the  high-priest,  and  pass  over  the 
arraignment  of  Christ  in  the  Sanhedrim-room,  to  hear 
his  sentence.  Omissions  are  not  contradictions.  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  do  not  contradict  Luke,  when  he  says 
expressly,  that  "As  soon  as  it  was  clay,  the  elders  of 
the  people,  and  the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes, 
came  together,  and  led  him  into  their  council."  On 
the  contrary,  we  have  seen  that  Matthew  incidentally 
confirms  this  statement,  by  his  allusion  to  the  inter- 
view between  Judas  and  these  same  chief  priests  and 
elders,  within  the  precincts  of  the  temple.  Luke, 
moreover,  does  not  contradict  Matthew  and  Mark,  in 
what  they  tell  of  the  informal  proceedings  against  our 
Lord  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas.  On  the  contrary,  by 
placing  the  maltreatment  of  Jesus  before  the  removal 
of  the  court  to  the  council  chamber,  he  has  incident- 
ally confirmed  their  direct  declarations.  It  is  unna- 
tural to  suppose  that  the  menials  or  officials  about  his 
sacred  person  would  have  dared  to  offer  him  so  many 
indignities,  before  they  heard  the  opinion  of  their 
superiors  that  he  was  worthy  of  death.  It  is  true 
that  John  tells  us  of  his  being  struck  in  the  very  pre- 
sence of  the  high-priest ;  but  this  blow  was  given  in  a 
moment  of  anger,  and  for  an  alleged  want  of  respect 
to  the  high-priest.  We  think  it  altogether  unlikely 
that  Caiaphas,  with  his  strict  attention  to  legal  tech- 
nicalities, would  have  permitted  a  series  of  outrages  to 
be  perpetrated  upon  his  prisoner,  before  the  informal 
decision  was  given. 


OF    CHRIST.  281 

The  Romans  were  accustomed  to  treat  condemned 
criminals  with  the  utmost  barbarity.  It  was  common 
with  them  to  scourge  sentenced  malefactors,  before 
putting  them  to  death.  The  Jews,  from  their  long 
intercourse  with  their  conquerors,  had  doubtless 
learned  to  borrow  some  of  their  notions,  and  to  imi- 
tate at  least  their  worst  customs.  Men  are  ever 
prone  to  imitate  evil  rather  than  good;  and  as  the 
Jews  had  the  example  of  the  Romans  for  the  mal- 
treatment of  those  under  sentence  of  death,  Caia- 
phas  could  easily  reconcile  to  his  strangely  consti- 
tuted conscience  the  wanton  insults  to  Christ,  after 
the  Sanhedrim  had  pronounced  him  to  be  worthy  of 
death.  He  would  most  likely  have  interfered  to 
prevent  this  treatment,  had  it  occurred  before  the 
informal  action  of  the  council.  Nor  do  we  think  it  at 
all  improbable  that  the  misusage  of  Christ  first  began 
with  the  Roman  soldiers.  Luke  explicitly  tells  us 
that  the  cruel  sport  was  started  by  the  men  who  held 
Jesus.  And  we  have  already  seen  the  anxiety  of  the 
Jewish  rulers  to  get  our  Lord  into  the  hands  of  the 
Romans.  It  is  exceedingly  probable  then,  that  Caia- 
phas  committed  the  keeping  of  our  Lord  to  those 
soldiers  from  the  garrison  of  Antonia,  who  accompa- 
nied the  arresting  party  to  Gethsemane.  If  so,  the 
high-priest  would  not  feel  himself  called  upon  to  inter- 
rupt these  custodians  of  Christ  in  a  course  of  conduct, 
which,  however  unjust  and  improper,  was  entirely 
consonant  with  their  customs  and  ideas  of  propriety. 
And  when  the  servants  and  retainers  of  the  high- 
21* 


282  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

priest  joined  the  Romans  in  their  wicked  fun,  he  could 
still  justify  his  non-interference,  upon  the  ground  that 
the  Romans,  who  led  the  way  in  the  deviltry,  would 
be  offended  at  any  expression  of  disapprobation  of 
their  proceedings. 

61.  The  point,  which  we  make  here,  is  one  of  great 
importance.  There  seemed  to  be  an  irreconcilable 
discrepancy  between  Luke  and  the  first  two  Evange- 
lists. But  the  hypothesis  of  two  sittings  of  the  San- 
hedrim has  brought  harmony  out  of  disagreement. 
Yea,  it  has  done  more ;  it  has  shown  that  what  seemed 
difference,  was  really  coincidence  of  the  most  delicate 
and  convincing  character.  Luke  incidentally  confirms 
what  Matthew  and  Mark  say  of  the  informal  sentence 
against  Christ,  by  placing  the  maltreatment  of  Christ 
in  the  house  of  Caiaphas.  Matthew  confirms  what 
Luke  says  of  the  adjournment  of  the  court  to  the 
council-room,  by  an  incidental  allusion  to  an  interview 
between  Judas  and  the  chief  priests,  within  the  walls 
of  the  temple. 

It  is  utterly  impossible  to  exhibit  stronger  proof 
of  the  reliability  of  evidence  than  is  here  presented 
by  an  examination  of  the  testimony  of  the  first  three 
Evangelists.  The  agreement  between  them  is  perfect, 
and  yet  so  casual  and  undesigned  as  to  preclude  the 
suspicion  of  collusion.  The  fact  that  so  much  diffi- 
culty has  been  felt  and  acknowledged  by  those  who 
have  attempted  to  reconcile  them,  proves,  incontesta- 
bly,  that  the  very  last  thing  thought  of  by  the  wit- 
nesses,   was    the    harmonizing    of    their    statements. 


OF    CHRIST.  283 

Our  solution  of  the  difficulty  removes  it  entirely,  and 
throws  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  objector.  Every 
plausible  explanation  of  an  alleged  discrepancy  knocks 
down  one  prop  of  his  system  of  error.  He  has  to  go 
to  work  and  try  to  build  it  up.  He  has  to  go  to  work 
to  show  that  the  explanation  does  not  cancel  the  dis- 
crepancy. For  (we  cannot  too  strongly  reiterate  it) 
the  presumption  is  always  in  favour  of  the  truthful- 
ness of  witnesses.  It  is  incumbent  on  him  who  denies 
their  veracity,  to  show  that  their  statements  are 
inconsistent,  improbable,  or  contradictory. 

The  Evangelists,  in  their  account  of  the  maltreat- 
ment of  our  blessed  Saviour,  have  exhibited  the  pro- 
gressive nature  of  wickedness  in  the  most  natural 
manner.  Never  was  "the  mirror  held  up  to  nature" 
in  a  more  undesigned  manner.  The  verse  above 
quoted  from  Luke  might  be  rendered  "the  men  that 
held  Jesus  made  sport  of  him,  striking  him."  By 
reference  to  the  other  Evangelists,  we  find  that  they 
began  their  cruel  sport  with  spitting  upon  him,  then 
as  their  blood  warms  with  their  devilish  mischief,  they 
buffet  him,  and  strike  him  with  the  palms  of  their 
hands.  And  so  their  appetite  for  wrong-doing  grows 
with  the  things  that  it  feeds  upon ;  until  at  length, 
those  who  had  mocked,  and  insulted,  and  struck  him 
in  a  sort  of  infernal  by-play,  while  in  the  house  of 
Caiaphas,  exhibit  the  most  monstrous  ferocity  before 
the  judgment-hall  of  Pilate.  The  men,  who  had 
been  content  with  derision  and  buffoonery,  now  cry 
aloud  for   blood,  and  raise  the  fierce  shout,  "Away 


284  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

with  him  !  Crucify  him  !  crucify  him  !"  Father  in  hea- 
ven, is  this  a  true  picture  of  thy  fallen  creatures  ?  Is 
wicked  fun  so  soon  changed  into  malignant  hate  ?  Is 
malicious  sport  so  soon  changed  into  murderous  vio- 
lence? Is  godless  merry-making  so  soon  changed 
into  "fire-brands,  arrows,  and  death?"  Is  the  pro- 
fane jest  so  soon  changed  into  the  howl  for  blood? 
Alas !  we  know  too  well  how  the  carousing  and  fes- 
tivity of  sinners  generally  terminate.  And  yet  what 
eloquent  pleas  are  made  for  innocent  sports  and  harm- 
less fun,  as  though  there  could  be  anything  innocent 
and  harmless  without  the  blessing  of  God  upon  it ! 

But  our  object  has  been  to  call  attention  to  the 
natural  stroke  given  us  by  the  Evangelists  in  their 
exhibition  of  the  rapid  downward  progress  of  the 
wicked.  The  wretches,  who  surrounded  our  Lord, 
were  satisfied  at  first  with  raillery  and  rough  plea- 
santry, but  grew  fiercer  and  fiercer  by  their  indul- 
gence in  violence,  until  nothing  will  appease  their  mor- 
bid craving  for  fresh  excitement,  but  the  mortal  agony 
of  their  insulted  victim.  History  and  experience 
confirm  what  the  gospel  writers  have  taught  inci- 
dentally in  regard  to  the  quick  advance  in  crime. 
The  brothers  of  Joseph  were  first  jealous  of  him,  next 
they  hated  him ;  and,  finally,  they  wished  to  slay 
him.  "Is  thy  servant  a  dog,  that  he  should  do  this 
thing!"  was  the  indignant  reply  of  Hazael,  when  told 
by  the  prophet  of  the  atrocities  that  he  would  commit. 
And  yet  Hazael  advanced  step  by  step  in  wicked- 
ness,  until    he    had    perpetrated    all    the    enormities 


OF   CHRIST.  285 

which  had  been  predicted.  "  When  King  Saul  had 
once  disregarded  the  divine  authority  in  his  treatment 
of  the  Amalekites,  there  were  no  bounds  to  the  evil 
workings  of  his  mind.  Full  of  jealousy,  envy,  and 
malignity,  he  murders  a  whole  city  of  innocent  men ; 
repairs  to  a  witch  for  counsel ;  and  at  the  last,  with 
his  own  hands,  puts  an  end  to  his  miserable  life.  .  .  . 
And  so  too  with  David — having  first  outraged  deco- 
rum, he  betakes  himself  to  intrigue,  in  hope  to  cover 
his  crime :  and  when  this  fails  him,  he  has  recourse  to 
murder;  and  this  being  accomplished,  the  horrible 
event  is,  with  an  air  of  affected  resignation,  ascribed 
to  Providence :  '  The  sword  devoureth  one,  as  well  as 
another'!  Nor  is  this  the  only  instance  wherein  that 
which  began  in  a  wanton  look,  has  ended  in  blood."' — 
Andrew  Fuller. 

But  turning  from  sacred  history,  (whose  authority 
the  infidel  does  not  recognize,)  we  can  find  numerous 
instances  given  by  profane  writers,  of  the  progress 
of  sin. 

The  appetite  for  blood  was  not  developed  in  a  day, 
in  the  monster  Nero.  When  the  first  death-warrant 
was  brought  to  him  for  his  signature,  he  said  that  he 
wished  that  he  had  never  learned  to  write,  so  that  he 
might  have  been  spared  the  painful  duty  of  sanction- 
ing a  single  execution.  And  this  was  the  speech  of 
him  who  afterwards  fed  his  wild  beasts  with  the  bodies 
of  Christians,  thrown  in  alive  to  them.  This  was  the 
speech  of  him  to  whom,  in  after  years,  the  sweetest 
music  was  the  cranching  of  the  bones  of  those  "  of 


286  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

whom  the  world  was  not  worthy."  And  thus  too  was 
it  with  the  bloodthirsty  wretch  Caligula.  The  first 
eight  months  of  his  reign  were  distinguished  for  mode- 
ration, mercy,  and  justice.  And  so  too  was  it  with 
Commodus,  who  has  perhaps  gained  a  more  infamous 
notoriety  than  any  of  the  other  emperors  that  proved 
a  curse  to  Rome  and  to  the  world.  "  During  the  first 
three  years  of  his  reign,  the  forms,  and  even  the  spirit 
of  the  old  administration  were  maintained  by  those 
faithful  counsellors  to  whom  Marcus  had  recommended 
his  son,  and  for  whose  wisdom  and  integrity  Commo- 
dus still  entertained  a  reluctant  esteem.  The  young 
prince  and  his  favourites  still  revelled  in  all  the  license 
of  power;  but  his  hands  were  yet  unstained  with 
blood;  and  he  had  even  displayed  a  generosity  of 
sentiment  which  might  perhaps  have  ripened  into  solid 
virtue.  A  fatal  incident  decided  his  fluctuating  cha- 
racter."— Gibbon.  But  the  luxurious  inclinations  and 
sensual  appetites  of  the  young  sovereign  had  already 
hardened  his  heart,  and  prepared  the  way  for  his 
bloody  career;  and  therefore  it  was  that  "his  cruelty, 
which  at  first  obeyed  the  dictates  of  others,  degene- 
rated into  habit,  and  at  length  became  the  ruling 
passion  of  his  soul."  And  thus  too  was  it  with  most 
of  the  incarnate  fiends  who,  under  the  illustrious  title 
of  Caesar,  made  themselves  drunk  with  the  blood  of 
their  subjects.  Few  of  them  grew  up  immediately  to 
the  full  stature  of  giants  in  iniquity.  Slow  and  almost 
insensible  was  their  progress  in  sin,  until  they  became 
monsters  of  depravity  and  cruelty. 


or  ciirist.  287 

And  if  we  come  down  to  the  darkest  and  most 
melancholy  chapter  of  the  world's  history — that  which 
records  the  French  Revolution — we  will  find  the  same 
rapid  progression  in  crime.  Not  one  of  the  ruthless 
actors  in  the  dreadful  scenes  of  that  period  seems  to 
have  been  born  with  a  naturally  ferocious  disposition. 
Danton  may  perhaps  constitute  an  exception ;  and 
yet  the  hands  of  Danton  were  not  so  deeply  imbrued 
with  blood  as  were  those  of  Barrere,  whose  natural 
disposition  was  mild  and  amiable.  "A  man  who, 
having  been  blessed  by  nature  with  a  bland  temper, 
gradually  brings  himself  to  inflict  misery  on  his  fellow- 
creatures  with  indifference,  with  satisfaction,  and  at 
length  with  hideous  rapture,  deserves  to  be  regarded 
as  a  portent  of  wickedness;  and  such  a  man  was 
Barrere.  .  .  .  He  tasted  blood,  and  felt  no  loathing ; 
he  tasted  it  again,  and  liked  it  well.  Cruelty  became 
with  him,  first  a  habit,  then  a  passion,  at  last  a  mad- 
ness. So  complete  and  rapid  was  the  degeneracy  of 
his  nature,  that  within  a  very  few  months  from  the 
time  when  he  passed  for  a  good-natured  man,  he  had 
brought  himself  to  look  on  the  despair  and  misery  of 
his  fellow-creatures  with  a  glee  resembling  that  of  the 
fiends  whom  Dante  saw  watching  the  seething  pitch 
in  Malebolge.  He  had  many  associates  in  guilt ;  but 
he  distinguished  himself  from  them  all  by  the  baccha- 
nalian exultation  which  he  seemed  to  feel  in  the  work 
of  death.  He  was  drunk  with  innocent  and  noble 
blood ;  he  laughed  and  shouted  as  he  butchered,  and 
howled  strange  songs,  and  reeled  in  strange  dances, 


288  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

amidst  the  carnage." — Maeaulay.  And  this  reveller 
in  blood  was  considered,  until  past  his  thirtieth  year, 
a  mild,  gentle,  and  humane  man  !  The  heart  is  deceit- 
ful above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked — who  can 
know  it  ? 

The  loveliest  cities  are  sometimes  desolated  by  an 
eruption  of  fiery  lava,  which  had  lain  for  ages  unseen 
and  unsuspected  beneath  the  fairest  surface;  but 
which  had,  all  the  while,  been  slowly  eating  away  the 
crust  of  earth  that  restrained  it.  So,  in  the  bosom 
of  every  unregenerate  man,  there  is  a  seething  mass 
of  corruption,  which,  when  the  restraints  of  God's 
providence  are  removed,  will  burst  forth  into  the 
most  desolating  wickedness.  Maximilian  Robespierre, 
before  the  seed  of  evil  in  him  had  been  germinated 
by  the  atrocities  of  the  Revolution,  was  distinguished 
for  his  tenderness  to  his  brother  and  sister.  Desmou- 
lins,  who  severed  by  the  guillotine  the  marriage  ties 
of  so  many  of  the  noblest  men  in  France,  might  have 
lived  and  died  in  any  other  period  of  history,  remark- 
able only  for  his  ardent  attachment,  and  faithful 
devotion  to  his  beautiful  and  accomplished  wife.  And 
what  a  fearful  thing  it  is  to  reflect  that  the  sanguinary 
St.  Just,  the  blasphemer  Clootz,  the  obscene  Chau- 
mette,  and  all  of  the  infernal  Jacobin  Club,  were  once 
innocent  babes,  and  were  hushed  to  sleep  on  the 
breasts  of  gentle  mothers !  We  are  prone  to  think 
of  them  as  devils  let  loose  from  the  pit  of  darkness, 
and  to  forget  that  they  once  romped  about  in  all  the 
exuberance  of  childish  delight,  and  boyish  glee.     Ah, 


OF   CHRIST.  289 

how  little  are  we  inclined  to  remember  that  the  chil- 
dren who  gladden  our  hearts  by  their  sinless  mirth, 
and  cheer  us  by  their  bursts  of  innocent  laughter, 
have  within  them  the  elements  of  a  depraved  nature, 
which  may  be  developed  into  the  most  blood-thirsty 
ferocity,  and  heaven-daring  impiety!  Slowly,  but 
surely,  will  Satan  and  sin  work  their  eternal  ruin, 
unless  God  interpose  with  his  sovereign  grace.  0 
thou  that  keepest  thy  covenant  with  thy  people,  take 
charge  of  the  little  ones  of  the  flock ! 

But  if  the  degeneracy  of  individuals  be  thus  rapid, 
how  much  more  so  is  that  of  communities !  There  is 
always  a  demoralizing  influence  in  numbers.  This  is 
due  to  various  causes.  The  majority  in  assemblages 
of  men  are  generally  godless,  hence  the  balance  is 
against  truth  and  righteousness.  Add  to  this,  the 
inclination  to  imitate  evil  rather  than  good,  and  the 
preponderance  of  the  majority  becomes  tremendous. 
Throw  into  the  account,  also,  the  natural  desire  for 
preeminence,  which  makes  men  unwilling  to  be  out- 
stripped even  in  wickedness.  "  The  workers  of 
iniquity  boast  themselves;"  yea,  they  will  boast  of 
their  iniquity  to  one  another,  when  they  have  no 
nobler  object  of  ambition.  Add  once  more,  the 
encouragement  to  sin  afforded  by  the  presence,  the 
sympathy,  and  the  counsel  of  evil  companions.  "  They 
encourage  themselves  in  an  evil  matter,"  was  the 
experience  of  David  in  his  day,  and  has  been  the 
experience  of  the  world  in  every  age.  "Iron  sharp- 
eneth  iron ;  so  a  man  sharpeneth  the  countenance  of 
25 


290  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

his  friend."  And  so  it  is,  whether  the  sharpening  be 
for  weal  or  for  woe,  for  happiness  or  destruction. 
"As  in  water  face  answereth  to  face,  so  the  heart 
of  man  to  man."  Yes,  a  true  image  will  be  reflected 
back,  whether  the  features  be  hideous  with  vice,  or 
lovely  with  virtue. 

All  the  causes  enumerated  above,  and  many  others, 
combine  to  accelerate  the  progress  in  wickedness  of 
promiscuous  gatherings  of  men.  How  often  have 
mobs,  which  had  assembled  with  a  comparatively 
harmless  design,  proceeded  to  the  most  outrageous 
acts  of  indecency  and  cruelty,  after  they  had  stimu- 
lated one  another  with  a  recital  of  real  or  imaginary 
grievances,  and  encouraged  one  another  in  violence 
and  wrong-doing !  How  often  do  they  begin  with  a 
little  playful  rudeness,  and  end  with  pouring  out  blood 
like  water ! 

62.  We  have  called  in  history  and  experience  to 
prove  that  the  Evangelists  have  not  done  violence  to 
nature,  in  their  representation  of  the  conduct  of  those 
who  maltreated  our  adorable  Redeemer.  On  the  con- 
trary, their  representations  entirely  correspond  with 
all  that  is  known  of  the  rapid  progress  of  vice.  But, 
alas !  unbelief  will  not  see,  and  will  not  admire  the 
truthful  picture  presented  by  the  sacred  writers.  So 
far  from  it,  the  very  men  who  extol  the  genius  of 
Hogarth  in  exhibiting  by  a  series  of  paintings  the 
"Hake's  Progress,"  from  the  first  slight  departure 
from  virtue  to  the  last  crowning  act  of  guilt,  can  see 
nothing  to  commend  in  the  same  truthful  representa- 


OF   CHRIST.  291 

tion  by  the  Evangelists  of  the  ever  downward  course 
of  sin.  History  and  experience  go  for  nothing  with 
the  poor  benighted  infidel.  Philosophy  herself  may 
come  forward  and  show  that  the  Evangelists  describe 
the  laws  governing  the  moral  world,  just  as  she 
describes  the  laws  governing  the  physical  world.  She 
teaches  that  falling  bodies  descend  with  an  ever  accel- 
erating velocity;  they  teach  that  the  wicked  run  the 
downward  road  to  hell  with  an  ever-quickening  speed. 
All  this  harmony  of  the  gospels  with  history,  with 
experience,  and  with  nature,  will  have  but  little  weight 
with  the  deluded  sceptic.  But  the  child  of  God  will 
have  his  faith  strengthened  by  it,  and  will  be  the  bet- 
ter enabled  to  "give  to  every  man  a  reason  for  the 
hope  that  is  in  him,"  of  the  blessed  truths  of  the  book 
divine.  His  faith,  too,  will  be  more  firmly  established, 
by  observing  how  little  design  there  is  in  the  harmony. 
The  Evangelists  give  their  evidence  like  men  too 
much  in  earnest  to  tell  their  own  tale,  to  be  concerned 
about  harmonizing  with  anybody,  or  with  anything. 
They  have,  with  a  few  rapid  touches,  given  us  a  faith- 
ful portrait  of  human  nature ;  but  they  have  done  this 
in  such  an  artless  manner,  that  the  most  brazen  effron- 
tery cannot  charge  them  with  preconcerted  design. 

We  will  now  examine  the  maltreatment  of  our  Lord 
in  detail.  Matthew  says,  "  Then  did  they  spit  in  his 
face,  and  buffeted  him ;  and  others  smote  him  with  the 
palms  of  their  hands,  saying,  Prophesy  unto  us,  thou 
Christ,  who  is  he  that  smote  thee?"  We  learn  from 
this  that  two  distinct  sets  of  persons  were  engaged  in 


292  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

the  outrages  upon  our  Lord.  The  one  set  began  the 
wicked  sport  by  spitting  on  him,  as  a  mark  of  con- 
tempt, and  then  proceeded  to  buffet  him.  The  other 
set  smote  him  with  the  palms  of  their  hands,  and 
demanded  him  to  designate  the  smiters.  Who  were 
these  two  sets  of  persons  ?  We  cannot  find  out  from 
Matthew  who  they  were.  Neither  can  we  find  out, 
from  anything  that  he  has  said,  how  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult for  Christ  to  point  out  those  who  smote  him. 
He  required  but  the  use  of  his  eyes  to  see  them. 
Why  then  did  his  tormentors  assume  that  the  spirit 
of  prophecy  was  requisite,  in  order  to  know  who  they 
were?  Let  us  see  whether  Mark  throws  any  light 
upon  these  points.  His  account  is  as  follows:  "And 
some  began  to  spit  on  him,  and  to  cover  his  face,  and 
to  buffet  him,  and  to  say  unto  him,  Prophesy ;  and 
the  servants  did  strike  him  with  the  palms  of  their 
hands." 

Mark,  then,  answers  explicitly  one  of  our  ques- 
tions. The  second  set  were  servants,  probably  the 
servants  of  the  high-priest.  But  still  we  are  left  in 
ignorance  as  to  the  first  set.  Here,  however,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  Luke  supplies  the  deficiency,  and 
tells  us  that  the  first  set  were  those  who  held  Jesus — 
most  likely  Roman  soldiers.  A  comparison  of  Mark 
with  Matthew,  will  remove  the  other  difficulty.  We 
observe  that  while  both  Evangelists  agree  in  saying, 
that  the  first  set  spit  on  Jesus,  and  buffeted  him, 
Mark  mentions  a  circumstance  omitted  by  Matthew. 
He  tells  us  that  the  first  set  covered  our  Lord's  face. 


OF    CHRIST.  293 

Hence,  he  could  only  tell  who  smote  him,  by  being 
imbued  with  the  prophetic  spirit,  So  then,  Mark 
clears  up  the  obscure  passage  in  Matthew,  but  his  own 
narrative  would  be  just  as  unintelligible,  if  left  by 
itself.  Note  that  he  says  that  they  commanded  Jesus 
to  prophesy,  but  he  does  not  tell  what  they  required 
him  to  prophesy  about.  These  mutual  omissions  are 
readily  accounted  for,  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
Evangelists  were  honest  and  truthful  men.  We  ex- 
plain them,  by  saying,  That  they  arose  from  the 
excess  of  familiarity  of  both  writers  with  the  whole 
subject.  Men  who  are  thoroughly  conversant  with 
any  matter  themselves,  are  very  apt  to  assume  uncon- 
sciously some  degree  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of 
their  hearers,  and  to  make  most  important  omissions 
in  their  narratives.  But  how  can  the  infidel  account 
for  these  palpable  omissions,  with  his  theory  of  a 
cunningly  devised  fable? 

63.  On  summing  up  our  evidence,  we  see  that  we 
have  a  beautiful  specimen  of  independent,  but  concur- 
rent statements.  Luke  tells  us  who  were  the  ruffians 
that  began  the  assault  on  Jesus;  but  does  not  tell 
who  took  up  the  infernal  amusement,  and  continued 
it.  Mark  does  not  say  who  started  the  cruel  fun,  but 
explicitly  states  that  the  servants  prosecuted  it,  after 
it  was  once  begun.  Moreover,  Mark  speaks  of  a 
demand  to  Christ  to  prophesy,  when  his  face  was 
covered ;  but  he  does  not  say  what  he  was  required  to 
prophesy  about.  For  all  that  appears  to  the  contrary, 
it  might  have  been  about  future  events,  and  then,  of 
25* 


294  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

course,  the  covering  of  the  face  would  be  no  impedi- 
ment. But  now  Matthew  comes  in,  who  had  said 
nothing  about  the  blindfolding,  and  tells  us  that  the 
demand  was  to  prophesy  (or  say)  who  was  the  smiter. 
So  we  see  that  the  accounts  of  the  witnesses  are,  in 
their  individual  capacity,  obscure,  confused,  and  even 
unintelligible ;  but  when  taken  collectively,  are  clear, 
complete,  and  unmistakable.  How  are  we  to  account 
for  the  fact  that  statements  so  diverse  in  themselves, 
yet  when  put  together,  constitute  a  family  group — all 
bearing  the  same  family  likeness. 

A  far  less  striking  resemblance  between  the  numer- 
ous asteroids  discovered  between  Mars  and  Jupiter, 
has  induced  astronomers  to  ascribe  them  to  a  common 
origin.  "It  is  evident,"  says  a  recent  writer,  "that 
these  small  planets  sustain  to  each  other  a  relation 
different  from  that  of  the  other  members  of  the  solar 
system.  We  see  a  .family  likeness  running  through 
the  entire  group  ;  and  it  naturally  suggests  the  idea 
of  a  common  origin.  This  idea  occurred  to  the  mind 
of  Olbers,  after  the  discovery  of  the  second  asteroid, 
and  led  to  his  celebrated  theory,  that  all  these  bodies 
originally  constituted  a  single  planet,  which  had  been 
broken  into  fragments  by  the  operation  of  some  inter- 
nal force."  But  whether  this  theory  be  true  or  not, 
"it  seems,  nevertheless,  difficult  to  avoid  the  conclu- 
sion that  similar  causes  have  operated  in  determining 
the  orbits  of  this  zone  of  planets.  The  most  striking 
peculiarity  of  these  orbits  is,  that  they  all  lock  into 
one  another,  like  the  links  of  a  chain,  so  that  if  the 


OF   CHRIST.  295 

orbits   are  supposed  to  be  represented  materially  as 

hoops,  tbey  all  hang  together  as  one  system 

Indeed,  if  we  seize  hold  of  any  orbit  at  random,  it 
will  drag  all  the  other  orbits  along  with  it.  This 
feature  of  itself  sufficiently  distinguishes  the  asteroid 
orbits  from  all  the  other  orbits  of  the  solar  system." 

May  we  not,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  trace  up  the 
gospel  narratives  to  the  same  source — even  the  source 
of  eternal  truth  ?  We  have  seen  in  them  a  far  nicer 
interlocking  than  the  astronomer  discovers  in  the 
asteroid  paths.  We  have  seen  link  welded  in  with 
link,  supporting  all  the  rest,  and  in  turn  supported  by 
them. 

The  next  verse  (64th,)  of  the  chapter  under  con- 
sideration, is  in  the  words:  "And  when  they  had 
blindfolded  him,  they  struck  him  on  the  face,  and 
asked  him  saying,  Prophesy,  who  is  it  that  smote 
thee." 

Our  translators  have  made  a  little  difference  in 
their  rendering  of  the  same  word.  The  blindfolding 
in  the  original  is  expressed  by  the  same  word,  as 
that  rendered  covering,  in  Mark — covering  his  face. 
It  has,  however,  the  participle  form  in  Luke,  and  is  a 
verb  in  Mark.  But,  passing  over  that  point,  we 
notice  that  Mark  unequivocally  ascribes  the  demand 
to  prophesy  to  the  first  class  of  tormentors.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  he  means  to  say  that  those  who 
spit  on  our  Lord,  buffeted  and  blindfolded  him,  were 
the  same  persons.  The  language  of  Luke  conveys 
the   same   impression.      Matthew,    on    the    contrary, 


296  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

ascribes  with  equal  distinctness,  the  demand  to  pro- 
phesy, to  the  second  class  of  persecutors  :  "and  others 
smote  him  with  the  palms  of  their  hands,  saying, 
Prophesy  unto  us,  thou  Christ,  who  is  he  that  smote 
thee?"  Here  then  is  discrepancy,  and  that,  too,  of 
the  very  kind  which  infidelity  has  gloated  over  and 
exulted  in.  But  we  will  see  how  little  comfort  unbe- 
belief  can  derive  from  this  source.  The  second  set 
of  persecutors  were  servants;  the  first  set  were  the 
custodians  of  Christ — most  likely  Roman  soldiers. 
Now,  how  natural  the  supposition,  that  the  servants 
imitated  the  language,  as  well  as  the  behaviour  of 
their  superiors !  How  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
menials  thought  it  noble  to  imitate  the  Roman  taunt, 
as  well  as  the  Roman  blow ! 

So  the  whole  difficulty  is  removed  by  the  simple 
hypothesis,  that  the  guard  around  Christ  first  began 
the  jeering  about  his  prophetic  claims,  and  that  the 
servants  afterwards  joined  in  the  jeering,  under  the 
impression  that  it  was  very  witty,  or  very  severe. 
But  we  are  far  from  being  content  with  merely  can- 
celling the  discrepancy.  We  trust  to  be  able  to  show, 
that  there  is  in  the  testimony,  a  fine  example  of  the 
preservation  of  individual  characteristics,  by  the  res- 
pective witnesses.  Observe  that  Matthew  puts  two 
words,  "thou  Christ"  in  the  mouths  of  the  second 
class  of  ruffians,  which  the  first  class  did  not  use. 
"  Prophesy  unto  us,  thou  Christ,  who  is  he  that  smote 
thee?"  Now,  remember  that  this  second  class  was 
composed  of  servants,  Jewish  menials.     We   do  not 


OF    CHRIST.  297 

care  to  enter  into  the  discussion  of  the  proper  mean- 
ing of  the  word  rendered  "  servants."  It  matters  not 
whether  they  were  the  servants  of  Caiaphas,  or  the 
attendants  of  the  Sanhedrim,  or  the  guard  of  the  tem- 
ple. John  vii.  45.  At  any  rate,  they  were  Jews,  men 
to  whom  the  nature,  the  office,  and  the  dignity  of  the 
Christ,  were  perfectly  familiar.  From  his  earliest 
childhood,  the  Jew  was  accustomed  to  hear  of  the 
Christ — the  promised  Messiah — the  expected  deliverer 
of  his  nation.  These  menials,  servants  or  officials, 
(call  them  by  what  name  you  please)  knew  full  well 
that  the  Christ  was  to  be  a  prophet  like  unto  Moses. 
"  The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  prophet 
from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto  me; 
unto  him  shall  ye  hearken."  Deut.  xviii.  15.  There- 
fore, they  knew  full  well  that  when  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
claimed  to  be  the  Christ,  he  also  claimed  to  be  the 
Prophet  foretold  by  Moses.  There  was  then  a  devilish 
sarcasm  in  connecting  the  words,  "thou  Christ,"  with 
the  command,  "Prophesy  unto  us."  But  this  sarcasm 
could  only  have  entered  into  the  mind  of  a  Jew.  It 
would  have  had  no  point,  no  force,  no  meaning,  to  one 
of  another  nation.  Hence  the  Roman  soldiers,  who 
first  taunted  our  Lord  with  his  claim  as  a  prophet,  did 
not  employ  the  words,  "thou  Christ."  Their  whole 
system  of  mythology  made  them  familiar  with  the 
idea  of  a  prophet,  but  they  had  no  conception  of  a 
Christ. 

We  see  from  this,  that  Matthew  has  given  us  a 
natural  stroke,   marking  the  line  between  Jew  and 


298  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

Gentile,  discriminating  between  the  Romans  and  those 
of  his  own  nation.  The  faithful  representation  by  the 
Evangelist,  of  a  national  characteristic,  is  no  mean 
proof  of  his  reliability;  and  this  proof  is  greatly 
strengthened  by  the  undesigned,  spontaneous  manner 
in  which  it  is  given.  But  we  will  not  even  let  the 
argument  rest  here.  We  will  show  that  Luke  teaches 
directly,  what  Matthew  only  teaches  inferentially,  in 
regard  to  the  different  phraseology  employed  by  the 
Jews  and  Romans,  in  their  reviling  of  our  blessed 
Redeemer.  If  we  go  forward  in  the  narrative,  to  that 
dreadful  scene  on  Calvary,  we  will  observe  a  marked 
distinction  in  the  epithets  of  derision.  Luke  says, 
"And  the  rulers  also  with  them  (the  people)  derided 
him,  saying,  He  saved  others ;  let  him  save  himself, 
if  he  be  Christ,  the  chosen  of  God.  And  the  soldiers 
(Roman)  also  mocked  him,  coming  to  him,  and  offering 
him  vinegar,  and  saying,  If  thou  be  the  King  of  the 
Jews,  save  thyself."  Here  is  the  very  distinction 
that  Matthew  had  previously  made.  The  idea  of 
"the  Christ"  is  still  prominent  in  the  mind  of  the 
Jews,  and  they  jeer  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  his  vain 
claim  to  that  title.  The  Romans  knew  nothing  of  the 
Messiah;  they  join  in  the  scurrility;  they  join  in 
giving  a  mocking  appellation  of  honour — but  this  is 
"King,"  and  not  "Christ."  How  naturally,  how 
artlessly  have  the  Evangelists  brought  out  national 
peculiarities.  The  Jewish  scoffer  upbraids  the  Sufferer 
with  his  pretension  to  be  the  Christ ;  for  that  was  his 
crime,  in  the  estimation  of  the  Jews.     The  Roman 


OF    CHRIST.  299 

soldier  upbraids  him  with  his  claim  to  kingly  author- 
ity ;  for  that  was  his  crime,  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Romans. 

64.  A  review  of  our  testimony  shows  that  we  have 
a  threefold  argument  for  the  truth  of  the  witnesses. 
We  have  the  cancellation  of  a  discrepancy ;  a  natural 
exhibition  of  national  temper  and  tone  of  thought; 
and  a  direct,  though  wholly  undesigned,  confirmation 
by  Luke,  of  the  inferential  teaching  of  Matthew. 

We  attach  more  than  ordinary  importance  to  the 
point  just  made.  Matthew  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the 
second  class  of  tormentors,  words  which  a  Jew  alone 
would  have  thought  of  using,  and  which  a  Jew  alone 
would  have  thought  of  recording.  But  Matthew  does 
not  tell  us  that  these  ruffians  were  Jews;  we  are 
indebted  to  Mark  for  that  information.  Now,  accord- 
ing to  the  scheme  of  infidelity,  Mark  gave  this  inform- 
ation in  order  to  give  consistency  to  Matthew's  lie ; 
and  Luke  put  similar  language  in  the  mouth  of  the 
scoffers  around  the  cross,  in  order  to  give  consistency 
to  the  joint  lies  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  man  who 
can  believe  this  double  absurdity,  does  not  reject  the 
gospel  from  any  lack  of  credulity  in  his  composition. 
Alas !  how  sad  the  reflection,  that  unbelievers  are 
unbelievers  of  truth  alone;  and  that  they  can  give 
credence  to  any  system  of  error,  delusion,  and  wicked- 
ness. Thousands  of  miserable  wretches  in  France,  at 
the  close  of  the  last  century,  treated  the  word  of  God 
as  a  myth,  a  fable,  an  imposture,  but  to  believe  in  all 
the  wild  dreams,  the  vagaries,  the  extravagancies,  and 


300  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

the  prophecies  of  the  mad  fanatic,  Catharine  Theot. 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  rejected  for  a  crazy  woman  !  And 
this  is  the  gain  of  infidelity !  How  fearfully  does  the 
Father  avenge  the  insult  to  his  co-equal  Son ! 

The  65th  verse  of  the  twenty-second  chapter  of 
Luke  reads  thus:  "And  many  other  things  blasphem- 
ously spake  they  against  him." 

None  of  the  other  Evangelists  contain  a  similar 
comment  upon  the  conduct  of  those  who  maltreated 
our  precious  Saviour.  Notice,  moreover,  that  Luke's 
comment  is  upon  the  language,  and  not  upon  the  acts 
of  the  persecutors.  To  arrive  at  a  right  understand- 
ing of  the  state  of  mind  which  prompted  the  Evange- 
list to  make  this  remark,  we  must  go  forward  a  little 
in  his  narrative.  We  will  find,  by  comparing  his 
record  of  the  proceedings  in  the  temple  with  his 
record  of  the  preliminary  trial  in  the  house  of  Caia- 
phas,  that  he  has  made  a  singular  omission  in  both 
cases.  He  does  not  mention  the  appeal  of  the  high- 
priest  to  his  colleagues — "Ye  have  heard  his  blas- 
phemy." But  his  very  omission  furnishes  an  unan- 
swerable argument  for  the  credibility  of  the  gospel 
narratives.  How  did  Luke  get  the  idea  of  blasphemy 
in  his  mind?  Was  he  not  thinking  at  the  very  time 
he  penned  the  above  paragraph,  that  they  who  charged 
Jesus  with  blasphemy,  were  themselves  the  real  blas- 
phemers? To  this  it  may  be  objected,  that  it  was 
exceedingly  natural  for  Luke  to  comment  on  the  mal- 
treatment of  our  Lord.  Yes,  but  it  scarcely  seems 
natural  that  he  should  comment  on  the  opprobrious 


OF   CHRIST.  301 


&> 


words,  and  not  on  the  outrageous  acts — the  spitting 
the  buffeting,  and  the  smiting  with  the  palms  of  the 
hands.  We  must,  therefore,  ascribe  the  language  of 
Luke  to  some  other  cause  than  naturalness.  The 
real  cause,  it  seems  to  us,  was  his  recollection  that 
Jesus  had  been  accused  of  blasphemy — "he  hath 
spoken  blasphemy."  The  charge  against  Jesus  was 
on  account  of  his  words.  The  Jews  often  tried  to 
wrest  his  words  to  his  own  destruction.  Never  did 
they  dare  to  try  to  entrap  him  into  unlawful  deeds. 
The  false  witnesses  brought  no  accusation  against  him, 
of  even  a  single  wrong  deed  in  his  public  and  private 
life.  Caiaphas  himself  sought  to  condemn%him  by 
his  words.  There  was  no  act  of  that  sinless  career 
which  the  malignant  high-priest  could  censure.  And 
therefore,  he  sought  to  secure  a  judgment  against 
our  Lord,  for  the  utterances  of  the  mouth,  and  not 
for  the  works  of  the  hand.  The  artful  villain  suc- 
ceeded in  his  infernal  design,  and  the  Son  of  God  was 
judged  worthy  of  death,  on  account  of  the  confession 
of  his  own  lips.  "With  this  in  his  mind,  Luke  makes 
the  natural  comment,  that  although  his  Master  was 
informally  condemned  for  words  of  alleged  blasphemy, 
yet  the  real  blasphemous  expressions  were  spoken,  not 
by  him,  but  by  his  tormentors. 

There  is  a  consideration  which  greatly  strengthens 
the  view  just  taken  of  the  language  of  Luke.  Many 
of  the  incidents  connected  with  the  arrest,  the  trial, 
the  condemnation,  and  the  suffering  of  Christ,  furnish 
a  broad  and  affecting  contrast  of  weakness  and  power, 
26 


302  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

of  the  real  and  the  false.  He,  who  could  have  com- 
manded twelve  legions  of  angels,  was  deserted  by  his 
twelve  disciples.  He  whose  mere  presence  was  sufficient 
to  overthrow  the  arresting  party,  stood,  a  few  moments 
after,  a  helpless,  bound  prisoner  in  the  midst  of  them. 
The  Prophet  foretold  by  Moses  was  first  accused 
by  the  false  witnesses,  on  account  of  the  words  of  his 
own  prophecy.  The  real  High-Priest  of  Israel  was 
arraigned  at  the  bar  of  the  high-priest  in  type.  The 
King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords  was  brought  before 
Pilate,  the  representative,  the  shadow  of  an  earthly 
monarch.  One  more  instance  presents  this  contrast 
in  a  stiU  more  striking  light.  Olshausen  has  adduced 
sufficient  proof  to  make  it  at  least  very  probable,  that 
the  given  name  of  Barabbas  was  Jesus,  and  that  the 
other  was  his  surname.  At  any  rate,  the  word  Barab- 
bas means,  "Son  of  the  Father."  And  so  the  Jews 
preferred  the  robber  and  murderer,  the  son  of  an 
earthly  father,  to  the  holy,  harmless,  and  undefiled 
Son  of  God.  "It  is  a  most  striking  circumstance," 
says  the  learned  German  critic,  "that  two  Jesuses 
should  have  thus  met,  and  that  Pilate's  question  should 
have  taken  the  form,  '  whether  do  you  wish  that  I 
should  release  that  Jesus  who  is  called  Christ,  or  that 
one  who  is  called  Barabbas?'  How  applicable  the 
words  'ludit  in  humanis  Divina  potentia  rebus'  to 
this  transaction !  We  find  more  than  once,  particu- 
larly in  the  history  of  Christ's  suffering,  similar  mar- 
vellous instances  of  providential  control  in  matters 
apparently  unessential.     But   even  the  other  name, 


OF    CHRIST.  303 

Barabbas,  is  specially  significant — it  means  '  Son  of 
the  Father.'  All,  therefore,  which  in  the  Redeemer 
existed  in  essence,  appeared  in  the  murderer  in  carica- 
ture. It  is  not  improbable  even,  that  his  whole  enter- 
prise had  been  a  caricature  of  the  Most  Holy ;  and 
that  probably  he  had  pretended  to  the  plenipotential 
character  of  the  Messiah.  But  the  blinded  multitude, 
in  their  phrenzy,  chose  the  hellish  caricature  in  pre- 
ference to  the  heavenly  original." 

The  verse  that  we  are  considering  calls  attention 
to  the  same  sort  of  contrast — the  blasphemers  charg- 
ing the  sin  of  blasphemy  on  the  blasphemed.  It  is 
consistent,  then,  with  the  whole  scope  of  the  respec- 
tive narratives;  and  this  consistency  of  narration 
the  infidel  is  bound  to  recognize  as  an  argument  for 
the  credibility  of  the  witnesses,  whether  he  believe 
the  narratives  or  not.  He  must  take  the  record  just 
as  it  is ;  and  if  he  find  it  homogeneous  throughout,  he 
is  bound,  as  an  honest  man,  to  confess  that  the  homo- 
geneity is  against  him. 

65.  The  review  of  our  testimony  shows  that  we 
have  a  twofold  argument  for  the  truthfulness  of  the 
Evangelists.  Matthew  and  Mark  tell  of  the  charge 
of  blasphemy  against  our  Lord.  Luke,  who  is  alto- 
gether silent  about  the  charges,  uses,  nevertheless,  an 
expression  which  shows  that  he  had  it  in  his  mind. 
This  casual  correspondence  pleads  powerfully  in  favour 
of  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses.  And  if  we  add  the 
consistency  of  Luke,  in  presenting  another  contrast  to 
the  many  exhibited  in  the  proceedings  against  Christ, 


304  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

it  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conclusion,  that  the  writers 
of  the  gospel  history  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost. 


CHAPTER  XL 

JESUS   BEFORE   THE   SANHEDRIM. 

The  next  verse  in  order  (the  66th)  reads  thus :  "And 
as  soon  as  it  was  day,  the  elders  of  the  people,  and 
the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes,  came  together,  and 
led  him  into  their  council,  saying — " 

This  verse  has  given  the  critics  no  little  trouble. 
They  cannot  reconcile  it  with  the  three  preceding 
verses;  and  so  they  settle  the  difficulty  by  a  very 
summary  process.  Dr.  Robinson,  in  his  Harmony  of 
the  Gospels,  places  this  verse  and  the  five  that  follow 
it,  before  the  63d,  64th,  and  65th  verses.  So  does 
Dr.  Doddridge;  and  so  probably  do  all  the  harmo- 
nists. But  these  violent  transpositions  of  the  text 
are  exceedingly  dangerous.  Once  admit  that  a  verse 
is  out  of  place,  and  where  is  the  process  of  transposing 
to  stop  ?  What  limit  is  to  be  put  upon  the  re-arrange- 
ment of  the  canon  of  Scripture  ?  Who  is  to  decide 
what  verses  are  in,  and  what  are  out  of  place  ?  All 
tampering  with  the  word  of  God  is  calculated  to 
weaken  our  reverence  for  it,  and  to  shake  our  faith 
in  the  integrity  of  the  text.  We  are  far  from  sup- 
posing that  all  the  events  recorded  by  the  Evangelists, 


OF   CHRIST.  305 

took  place  in  the  very  order  in  which  they  are  related. 
But  we  do  believe  that  we  have  the  record  itself,  just 
as  it  was  written,  and  that  the  writers  had  their  rea- 
sons for  their  peculiar  methods  of  narration.  John, 
for  instance,  being  an  eye-witness  to  the  transactions 
in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  mentions,  with  great  pre- 
cision, the  time  of  Peter's  first  denial,  and  places  it 
before  the  arraignment  of  our  Lord.  Matthew  and 
Mark  do  not  withdraw  their  eyes  from  the  great  cen- 
tral figure,  Jesus,  before  the  high-priest,  to  notice  the 
side-scene  between  Peter  and  the  servants.  They  first 
see  what  will  be  the  fate  of  their  Master,  before  they 
turn  their  eyes  to  his  denying  disciple.  The  three 
Evangelists  have  followed  their  own  tastes  and  inclina- 
tions, in  their  account  of  a  matter  where  the  point  of 
veracity  was  in  regard  to  a  fact,  not  in  regard  to  the 
time  of  its  occurrence. 

Select  any  two  witnesses  of  an  event,  in  which  great 
and  small  incidents  were  mixed  up,  and  you  will  most 
likely  observe  the  same  difference  in  their  accounts. 
The  one  may  group  the  great  incidents  together,  and 
speak  of  them  first ;  the  other  may  relate  every  thing, 
without  regard  to  its  relative  importance,  just  in  the 
order  in  which  it  happened.  Luke  differs  from  John 
and  the  other  two  Evangelists,  in  his  location  of  the 
denial  of  Peter.  Whereas  John  places  the  first  denial 
before  the  arraignment  of  Christ,  Matthew  and  Mark, 
all  the  denials  subsequent  to  this  maltreatment,  Luke 
places  the  three  denials  just  before  the  outrageous 
proceeding  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas. 
26* 


306  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

We  have  no  doubt  that  John  and  Luke  are  both 
right  in  what  they  intend  to  convey.  We  believe 
that  the  first  denial  of  Peter  was  before  the  arraign- 
ment of  our  Lord,  and  that  the  last  two,  which  (as 
we  have  seen)  occurred  close  together,  were  after  his 
informal  condemnation,  but  before  the  soldiers  and 
servants  began  their  rude  and  wicked  sport.  Peter 
was  with  the  group  around  the  fire  in  the  court, 
watching,  with  the  most  intense  interest,  the  progress 
of  the  trial.  As  soon  as  the  men  about  the  fire  per- 
ceived that  informal  judgment  had  been  pronounced 
against  the  prisoner,  they  turned  upon  Peter,  and 
urged  that  if  the  Master  were  guilty,  so  must  be  the 
disciple.  Peter,  in  rapid  succession,  denied  twice, 
even  with  oaths  and  cursing,  all  knowledge  of  Him 
from  whom  he  had  received  so  many  distinguished 
marks  of  kindness  and  love.  The  glorious  prisoner, 
so  soon  as  the  council  judged  him  to  be  "guilty  of 
death,"  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Roman  guard 
for  safe-keeping.  These  soldiers,  according  to  their 
national  custom,  began  a  course  of  wanton  and  brutal 
treatment.  The  servants  around  the  fire  soon  joined 
in,  and  Peter  seems  to  have  been  entirely  overlooked 
and  forgotten.  This  seems  to  us  a  natural  account 
of  the  whole  matter,  drawn  from  the  narratives  them- 
selves. The  internal  probability  is  strongly  in  favour 
of  Luke's  location  of  the  last  two  denials.  We  can- 
not think  that  after  the  soldiers  and  servants  had 
once  begun  their  abuse  of  the  leader,  they  would  any 
longer   trouble   themselves  about  the  follower.     But 


OP  CHRIST.  307 

while  we  believe  that  Luke  is  strictly  accurate  in 
regard  to  the  time  of  the  last  two  denials,  we  can  see 
nothing  improper  in  his  mentioning  the  first  denial  in 
the  wrong  place.  He  thought  it  most  suitable  to 
notice  all  three  denials  in  the  same  connection.  We 
cannot  blame  him  for  this,  any  more  than  we  can 
blame  the  historian  for  grouping  together  in  a  single 
chapter  the  events  of  different  periods.  Matthew  and 
Mark  dispose  of  the  trial  and  maltreatment  of  our 
Lord  before  they  mention  the  several  denials  of  Peter. 
Neither  can  we  blame  them  for  this,  any  more  than 
we  can  blame  the  historian  who  treats  of  military 
transactions  in  one  chapter,  and  of  trade,  agriculture, 
and  mechanic  arts  in  another.  We  all  recognize  his 
right,  when  treating  of  facts,  to  make  such  an  arrange- 
ment of  them  as  suits  him  best. 

We  have  returned  once  more  to  the  case  of  Peter, 
because  we  had  promised  an  explanation  of  the  dis- 
crepancy between  the  Evangelists,  and  because  it 
illustrates  our  objection  to  the  system  of  transposing 
verses  of  Scripture.  We  object  to  transposition,  be- 
cause we  believe  it  to  be  latitudinarian  and  danger- 
ous, and  because  we  believe  that  the  Evangelists  have 
had  a  design  in  the  order  of  their  narratives,  which 
is  frustrated,  or  least  liable  to  be  frustrated,  by  inter- 
changing their  verses.  Matthew  is  remarkably  inat- 
tentive to  time  and  place.  He  may,  for  example, 
appear  to  speak  of  a  thing  as  happening  in  Judea, 
which  really  took  place  in  Galilee.  But  he  may  thus 
place  two  things  together  to  make  a  contrast,  or  to 


308  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

show  a  connection  between  them,  or  to  deduce  a  moral. 
The  motive  of  the  writer,  whatever  it  may  be,  is 
interfered  with  by  this  transposing  process.  In  the 
case  under  consideration,  there  is  a  still  more  serious 
objection  to  the  transposition.  It  violates  the  truth 
of  history. 

We  have  no  doubt  whatever,  that  Luke,  in  the 
66th  verse,  describes  the  removal  of  the  Jewish  court 
from  the  house  of  Caiaphas  to  the  council-chamber 
within  the  temple.  Conybeare  and  Howson  call  this 
chamber  gazith,  but  Calmet  calls  it  hanoth,  and  says 
that  the  room  gazith  had  long  ceased  to  be  used.  It 
matters  not  by  what  name  we  call  it,  provided  we 
mean  by  it  a  room  in  the  temple.  The  word  employed 
by  Luke  in  the  66th  verse,  does  not  settle  the  ques- 
tion. They  led  Jesus  "into  their  council,"  not  into 
their  council-room.  The  equivalent  expression  with 
us  would  be,  they  led  him  into  court,  whether  that 
body  was  sitting  in  the  court-house,  or  in  any  other 
building  appropriated  to  its  use.  We  cannot  decide, 
then,  by  the  phraseology,  that  the  Sanhedrim  removed 
from  the  house  of  Caiaphas  to  the  temple.  But  we 
can  decide  with  absolute  certainty  that  there  was  a 
removal,  after  daylight,  to  some  place.  "And  as 
soon  as  it  was  day,  the  elders  of  the  people,  and  the 
chief  priests  and  the  scribes  came  together,  and  led 
him  into  their  council,  saying,"  &c. 

Now,  remember  that  Luke  had  most  explicitly 
stated  that  the  chief  priests,  and  captains  of  the 
temple,  and  the  elders,  were  present  at  the  arrest  in 


OF   CHRIST.  309 

Gethsemane.  What  does  he  mean,  then,  by  speaking 
of  their  coming  together  at  daylight,  as  though  for  the 
first  time  ?  A  simple  and  natural  solution  of  the  diffi- 
culty is,  that  the  court  adjourned,  after  the  informal 
judgment  in  the  palace  of  the  high-priest,  to  meet 
again  in  the  council-room  of  the  temple.  As  it  was 
not  quite  day  when  sentence  was  passed,  the  members 
may  have  dispersed  in  all  directions,  and  even  gone 
home  to  report  their  proceedings.  They  all  went  off, 
with  the  full  purpose  of  meeting  again,  according  to 
adjournment.  And  it  is  this  assembling  in  the  temple 
which  Luke  speaks  of,  in  the  verse  under  considera- 
tion. 

Moreover,  the  words,  "led  him  into  their  coun- 
cil," naturally  suggest  a  change  of  location.  And 
as  all  the  transactions  before,  which  Luke  had  men- 
tioned, occurred  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  it  seems 
reasonable  to  infer  that  this  Evangelist  means  to  say, 
that  Jesus  was  led  to  some  other  place.  The  language 
does  not  absolutely  imply  this ;  but  we  may  surely, 
without  extravagance,  draw  this  deduction  from  it. 
At  any  rate,  we  are  constrained  to  believe  that  Jesus 
was  led  from  the  spot  where  he  was  maltreated,  to 
some  other  place.  And  if  we  take  this,  in  connection 
with  the  specific  mention  of  daylight,  we  may  safely 
conclude  that  he  was  taken  to  the  temple.  There 
would  then  be  no  technical  objection  to  his  condemna- 
tion, either  on  account  of  the  time  when  it  was  made, 
or  the  place  where  it  was  made.  And  we  have 
already  seen,  that  he  could  not  be  condemned  legally, 


310  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

neither  could  he  be  condemned  anywhere  else  than  in 
the  temple,  without  an  irregularity. 

The  view  just  given  of  two  sittings  of  the  court,  is 
fully  endorsed  by  the  learned  Dr.  Scott.  He  says: 
"From  the  narratives  of  the  two  preceding  Evangel- 
ists, it  appears,  that  after  the  council  had  condemned 
Jesus,  they  separated,  and  met  again  early  in  the 
morning ;  and  the  words  here  used,  '  as  soon  as  it  was 
day,'  &c,  seem  to  refer  to  this  latter  meeting  of  the 
council.  Nor  is  it  improbable  that  the  high-priest 
should  put  the  same  questions  to  our  Lord,  that  he 
had  done  the  night  before;  both  to  see  whether  he 
would  stand  to  what  he  had  said,  and  that  such  mem- 
bers of  the  council  as  had  been  absent  might  hear  his 
answers."  But  while  Dr.  Scott  recognizes  two  sit- 
tings of  the  court,  he  does  not  perceive  that  the 
second  sitting  was  in  the  temple.  Nor  are  we  aware 
that  any  critic  has  noticed  the  change  of  venue. 

Some  hold  that  all  the  proceedings  were  in  the 
palace  of  Caiaphas ;  others,  that  all  were  in  the  coun- 
cil chamber  within  the  temple.  Not  one,  so  far  as  we 
know,  has  noticed  that  the  informal  trial  was  in  one 
place,  and  the  regular  trial  in  another.  And  yet, 
we  think  that  the  two  scenes  were  present  to  the 
mental  vision  of  the  prophet,  when  he  wrote,  "  He 
was  taken  from  prison,  and  from  judgment."  Heng- 
stenberg  says,  that  the  word  rendered  prison,  means, 
properly,  "confinement,"  and  then,  in  a  subordinate 
sense,  "violent  oppression."  Rosenmuller  renders  it 
"restraint."     Dr.   Alexander  interprets   it   to  mean 


OF   CHRIST.  311 

"distress."  Bishop  Horslej  says  that  it  means  "  con- 
straint of  power,  just  or  unjust,  lawful  or  unlawful." 
And  so  there  have  been  hundreds  of  different  trans- 
lations of  the  original  Hebrew. 

Of  course  no  argument  can  be  based  upon  language 
so  ambiguous  and  so  doubtful.  The  two  things  speci- 
fied seem,  however,  to  point  to  different  localities,  and 
we  throw  out  this  suggestion  for  whatever  it  is  worth. 
We  have  something  stable  to  rest  our  opinion  upon,  in 
the  parallel  statements  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  The 
former  says,  "  When  the  morning  was  come,  all  the 
chief  priests  and  elders  took  counsel  against  Jesus,  to 
put  him  to  death."  The  word  rendered  counsel,  might 
have  been  rendered  council,  with  just  as  much  pro- 
priety ;  and  this  is  the  rendering  of  it  in  Acts  xxv.  12 : 
"  Then  Festus,  when  he  had  conferred  with  the  coun- 
cil" &c.  With  this  slight  change,  Matthew  would 
say,  that  the  Jews  held  a  council,  organized  a  court 
against  Jesus,  not  with  the  design  of  giving  him  a  fair 
trial,  but  of  putting  him  to  death.  There  is  then  the 
most  perfect  agreement  between  Matthew  and  Luke. 
The  latter  speaks  of  the  Jews  leading  Jesus  into  their 
council ;  the  former,  of  the  organizing  of  this  council. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Sanhedrim  is  desig- 
nated. The  first  three  Evangelists  mention,  with  great 
precision,  those  who  composed  the  council ;  and  they 
were  the  same  three  orders  of  chief  priests,  scribes, 
and  elders,  which  constituted  the  Sanhedrim.  Mark 
says,  "And  straitway  in  the  morning  the  chief  priests 
held  a  consultation  with  the  elders  and  scribes,  and 


312  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

the  whole  council,  and  bound  Jesus,"  &c.  The  con- 
junction and,  before  bound,  is  omitted  in  the  text  of 
some  versions.  The  literal  translation  would  then  be, 
"  and  without  delay  in  the  morning,  the  chief  priests 
held  a  council  with  the  elders  and  scribes,  and  the 
whole  council  binding  Jesus,  carried  him  away  and 
delivered  him  to  Pilate." 

It  is  evident  from  this  examination,  that  the  first 
three  Evangelists  agree,  in  speaking  of  the  assembling 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  the  highest  tribunal  of  the  Jews, 
at  early  dawn.  Now,  observe  that  Matthew  had  dis- 
tinctly stated  that  the  arresting  party,  on  their  return 
from  Gethsemane  with  our  Lord,  found  the  scribes 
and  elders  assembled  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  (chap, 
xxvi.  57.)  Remember,  too,  that  he  expressly  states 
that  the  whole  Sanhedrim  sought  false  witness  against 
Jesus.  "Now,  the  chief  priests,  and  elders,  and  all 
the  council  (sunedrion)  sought  false  witness  against 
Jesus."  If  all  were  assembled  in  the  house  of  Caia- 
phas, why  call  a  second  meeting?  The  object  could 
not  be,  as  Dr.  Scott  supposes,  that  those  who  had 
been  absent  at  the  first  sitting,  might  hear  for  them- 
selves the  confession  of  our  Lord.  We  are  explicitly 
told  by  Matthew  that  all  were  present,  none  then 
could  be  absent.  Nor  is  it  at  all  likely,  that  in  the 
exasperated  state  of  the  minds  of  the  Jewish  rulers, 
any  would  desire  to  be  absent.  Furthermore,  why 
are  the  Evangelists  so  specific  in  their  allusion  to 
daylight?  Even  John,  who  is  so  brief  in  his  notice 
of  the  trial,  is  particular  in  stating  that  Jesus  was 


OF   CHRIST.  313 

led  at  an  early  hour  to  the  judgment-hall  of  Pilate. 
Take  the  view  that  the  court  met  after  daylight  in 
the  temple,  because  sentence  could  not  be  passed 
legally  at  night,  and  elsewhere  than  in  the  council- 
chamber  ;  the  whole  difficulty  will  then  disappear  in 
regard  to  two  meetings,  and  in  regard  to  the  specific 
allusion  to  the  time  of  the  second  meeting. 

66.  "  The  trail  which  hunters  and  Indians  follow 
(says  the  Scientific  American)  is  not  so  much  com- 
posed of  tracks  or  footprints,  as  of  indescribable  little 
signs,  such  as  leaves  and  blades  of  grass  bent  or 
turned,  twigs  broken,  and  other  things  so  small  and 
faint  that  they  cannot  be  shown  to  any  one,  yet 
which,  when  all  put  together,  make  a  kind  of  line 
along  the  ground."  Who  so  silly  as  to  suppose 
that  the  enemy  sought  by  the  Indian,  or  the  game 
sought  by  the  hunter,  made  purposely  this  impalpa- 
ble path,  in  order  to  be  pursued  and  overtaken?  If 
so,  why  did  they  not  make  it  broader,  better  beaten, 
and  more  distinct  ?  By  like  delicate  signs,  something 
dropped  here,  a  slight  mark  made  there,  have  we 
been  enabled  to  trace  up  the  coincidence  between  the 
Evangelists.  Who,  then,  can  accuse  them  of  designed 
correspondence?  If  such  had  been  the  object,  why 
did  they  not  make  the  harmony  more  perceptible, 
more  evident,  more  unmistakable?  So  far  is  their 
agreement,  in  regard  to  the  two  sittings  of  the  court, 
from  being  palpably  plain,  that  it  has  only  been  dis- 
covered by  rigid  scrutiny  and  careful  search.  Fabu- 
lists would  not  write  in  this  manner.  Whatever  har- 
27 


314  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

monies  there  might  be  in  their  respective  statements, 
would  be  brought  out  too  conspicuously  to  be  over- 
looked. 

The  last  five  verses  of  the  twenty-second  chapter 
of  Luke  are  in  these  words :  "  Art  thou  the  Christ  ? 
tell  us.  And  he  said  unto  them,  If  I  tell  you,  ye 
will  not  believe.  And  if  I  also  ask  you,  ye  will 
not  answer  me,  nor  let  me  go.  Hereafter  shall  the 
Son  of  man  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of 
God.  Then  said  they  all,  Art  thou  then  the  Son  of 
God?  And  he  said  unto  them,  Ye  say  that  I  am. 
And  they  said,  What  need  we  any  further  witness  ? 
for  we  ourselves  have  heard  of  his  own  mouth." 

The  Sanhedrim  had  met  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
condemning  Jesus  on  his  own  confession.  With  a 
specious  appearance  of  fair  dealing,  and  with  all 
regard  to  their  legal  forms,  they  now  inquire  whether 
he  will  adhere  to  his  former  acknowledgment  of  his 
Messiahship,  "Art  thou  the  Christ?  tell  us,"  now 
convened  in  the  right  place,  and  at  the  right  hour, 
whether  you  still  claim  to  be  the  Christ.  Your  con- 
fession will  now  be  made  under  more  solemn  circum- 
stances, do  you  still  abide  by  it  ? 

Such,  we  understand,  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 
question  propounded  to  Jesus.  And  however  repug- 
nant may  be  to  us  the  thought  of  condemning  a  man 
on  his  own  confession,  a  condemnation  of  this  kind 
would  not  be  inconsistent  with  a  Jew's  ideas  of  jus- 
tice. We  must  not  forget  that  the  Jewish  government 
was  a  theocracy,  and  that  the  Mosaic  code  appealed 


OF    CHRIST.  315 

largely  to  the  conscience.  The  guilty  person  was  to 
be  his  own  accuser,  and  was  required  to  make  public 
confession  of  his  most  secret  sins.  The  whole  system 
of  trespass  and  sin-offerings  rested  upon  this  princi- 
ple :  "And  it  shall  be,  when  he  shall  be  guilty  in  one 
of  these  things,  that  he  shall  confess  that  he  hath 
sinned  in  that  thing.  And  he  shall  bring  his  trespass- 
offering  unto  the  Lord,  for  his  sin,  which  he  hath  sin- 
ned." Lev.  v.  5,  6.  "Then  they  shall  confess  their 
sin,  which  they  have  done;  and  he  shall  recompense 
his  trespass  with  the  principal  thereof,  and  add  unto 
it  the  fifth  part  thereof,  and  give  it  unto  him  against 
whom  he  hath  trespassed."  Numb.  v.  7.  And  so  we 
read  of  public  confessions  of  sin  by  Hezekiah  with 
his  people,  by  Ezra,  by  Nehemiah,  &c. 

The  case  of  Achan  furnishes  a  fine  illustration  of 
the  Jewish  idea  of  the  duty  of  the  public  confession 
of  sin.  After  the  lot  had  fallen  upon  Achan,  Joshua 
said  unto  him,  "My  son,  give,  I  pray  thee,  glory  to 
the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  and  make  confession  unto 
him ;  and  tell  me  now  what  thou  hast  done ;  hide  it 
not  from  me.  And  Achan  answered  Joshua,  and  said, 
Indeed  I  have  sinned  against  the  Lord  God  of  Israel, 
and  thus  and  thus  have  I  done."  Joshua  vii.  19,  20. 
This  extract  shows  the  assumption  on  Joshua's  part, 
that  God  would  be  glorified  by  the  confession  of  sin  to 
the  ruling  power.  And  this  idea  seems  to  have  been 
thoroughly  instilled  into  the  Jewish  mind.  Criminals, 
on  their  way  to  execution,  were  required  to  confess 
the  justice    of  their   sentence.     The   man  who    had 


316  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

wronged  his  neighbour,  even  unwittingly,  was  com- 
pelled to  make  acknowledgment  to  him  of  the  wrong 
committed.  And  the  sin-offering  to  the  Lord  was  vir- 
tually a  public  confession,  before  all  Israel,  of  some 
sin  committed.  The  whole  Mosaic  dispensation  thus 
familiarized  the  people  with  the  notion  that  it  was 
incumbent  on  the  transgressor  to  confess  his  guilt;  so 
that  they  seemed  to  feel  that  a  man  could  not  be  law- 
fully put  to  death,  without  his  own  acknowledgment 
of  guilt.  Observe,  that  Achan  had  been  detected  by 
the  casting  of  the  lot.  God  had  thus  given  his  testi- 
mony against  him;  but  Joshua  seems  to  have  been 
unwilling  to  execute  him  until  he  had  heard  his  own 
confession.  So  too  was  it  in  the  case  of  Jonah,  when 
the  lot  fell  upon  him ;  the  force  of  his  Jewish  educa- 
tion manifested  itself;  his  whole  system  of  training 
forbade  the  concealment  of  his  sin,  and  he  cried  aloud, 
"lam  a  Hebrew ;  and  I  fear  the  Lord,  the  God  of 
heaven,  which  hath  made  the  sea  and  the  dry  land.  .  .  . 
Take  me  up,  and  cast  me  forth  into  the  sea;  so  shall 
the  sea  be  calm  unto  you :  for  I  know  that  for  my  sake 
this  great  tempest  is  upon  you."  How  clearly  does 
this  prove  that  the  Israelite  was  reared  up  in  the 
belief  that  it  was  a  sacred  duty  to  confess  his  sin. 
When  the  fugitive  prophet  was  a  little  boy,  his  Jewish 
mother  had  taken  him  up  to  the  temple,  and  he  there 
saw  the  people  weeping,  and  praying,  and  confessing 
their  sins — he  looked  around,  and  saw  smoking  altars 
and  bleeding  victims — all  making  public  proclamation 
of  guilt.     And  when  he  had  acquired  the  rudiments 


of  ciirist.  317 

of  learning,  the  roll  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  was  put 
in  his  hands,  and  he  read  of  the  sin  of  hiding  his 
transgression.  And  when  he  became  a  well-grown 
lad,  and  followed  his  father  to  see  the  whole  congre- 
gation stone  a  malefactor,  without  the  walls  of  the 
city,  he  heard  the  doomed  man  confess  the  justice  of 
his  sentence. 

67.  The  point  which  we  now  make,  relates  to  the 
harmony  of  Luke's  statements  with  the  Jewish  judicial 
system.  He  tells  that  a  confession  was  demanded  of 
Christ,  as  the  basis  of  a  verdict  against  him.  Such  a 
proceeding  is  utterly  repugnant  to  our  notions  of  jus- 
tice and  fair-dealing.  We  might  then  be  disposed  to 
reject  Luke's  evidence,  because  of  its  unnaturalness ', 
but,  upon  investigation,  we  find  that  the  Evangelist  is 
sustained  by  the  whole  scope  of  the  ceremonial  and 
civil  laws  of  the  Mosaic  economy.  It  is  difficult  U 
give  too  much  weight  to  this  point.  A  fact  is  related, 
which  seems  too  absurd  and  preposterous  for  belief; 
but  we  find  it  corroborated  by  parallel  facts  of  the 
same  or  similar  kind.  All  this  looks  but  little  like  a 
forgery.  The  framers  of  a  fiction,  which  they  wished 
to  be  believed,  would  be  guarded  in  stating  things 
that  would  excite  doubt  and  suspicion.  The  boldness 
of  the  Evangelist  furnishes,  then,  a  presumption  of 
his  honesty;  and  this  presumption  becomes  proof, 
when  we  find  that  his  seeming  rashness  is  but  the 
natural  stroke  of  a  writer,  too  absorbed  in  his  narra- 
tion to  think  of  accommodating  it  to  the  views  and 
Bentiments  of  his  hearers. 
27* 


318  THE    CEUCIFIXION 

We  have  assumed,  in  the  foregoing  argument,  the 
truth  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  or  at  least  the 
existence  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  with  its  sacrifices 
and  confession  of  sin.  We  need  only  to  assume  the 
existence  of  the  Jewish  theocratic  polity,  and  we  will 
find  Luke's  account  consonant  with  it.  But  suppose 
that  the  infidel  has  the  effrontery  to  deny  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Hebrew  system  of  sacrifice  and  confession, 
he  cannot  deny  that  there  was  a  record  of  such  a 
system,  long  before  Luke  wrote.  And  this  acknow- 
ledgment will  make  as  much  against  the  unbeliever  as 
the  reality  of  the  Jewish  code.  For  it  amounts  to  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  correspondence  of  Luke's  tes- 
timony, with  that  of  a  whole  "cloud  of  witnesses," 
who  preceded  him.  We  care  not  which  horn  of  the 
dilemma  the  poor  sceptic  may  choose ;  either  of  them 
will  be  found  sufficiently  troublesome. 

There  is  a  delicate  and  plainly  undesigned  harmony 
between  Mark  and  Luke  in  regard  to  the  second 
assembling  of  the  Sanhedrim.  We  have  seen  that 
the  1st  verse  of  the  15th  chapter  of  Mark  expresses 
the  promptness  with  which  the  council  met  at  the 
first  dawning  of  light.  The  whole  verse  evinces  the 
utmost  eagerness  and  impatience,  on  the  part  of  the 
court  to  dispose  of  the  case  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  as 
soon  as  they  could  do  so,  consistent  with  the  letter 
of  the  law.  Luke,  in  his  66th  and  67th  verses,  har- 
monizes with  Mark  in  the  most  casual  and  undesigned 
manner.  He  shows  that  the  members  of  the  court,  in 
their  feverish  and  excited  state  of  mind,  do  not  wait 


OF   CHRIST.  319 

for  the  high-priest,  as  the  presiding  officer,  to  interro- 
gate our  Lord.  They  all  speak  together,  and  demand 
of  him  with  united  voice,  the  confession  before  made 
in  the  house  of  Caiaphas.  And  this  intemperate  zeal 
the  wicked  judges  show  throughout  the  trial.  Once 
more  they  vociferate  together,  "Art  thou  then  the 
Son  of  God?"  (Verse  70.) 

Now,  we  have  here  exhibited  as  perfect  an  example 
as  can  well  be  conceived,  of  complete,  and  yet  wholly 
unintended  agreement.  It  is  idle  to  suppose  that 
Luke,  by  his  casual  allusion  to  the  eagerness  of  the 
council,  meant  to  make  a  correspondence  with  Mark's 
allusion  to  the  earliness  of  the  hour.  But  we  will  not 
let. the  matter  rest  here.  The  hurried  meeting  in  the 
morning,  the  rapid  despatch  of  business,  the  clamor- 
ous speaking  together,  the  dispensing  with  witnesses, 
(verse  71,)  these  are  all  in  perfect  harmony  with  what 
had  been  said  before,  of  the  Sanhedrim's  fear  of  the 
common  people.  They  are  all  in  keeping  with  the 
arrest  of  Jesus  by  night,  beyond  the  walls  of  the  city. 
They  are  all  in  keeping  with  the  association  of  a  por- 
tion of  the  Roman  guard  with  the  arresting  party,  so 
as  to  awe  the  friends  of  Jesus,  and  prevent  a  rescue 
of  the  prisoner.  They  are  all  in  keeping  with  the 
effort  of  the  high-priest  in  his  own  house,  to  hasten  a 
verdict,  by  extorting  a  confession  through  the  means 
of  a  solemn  adjuration. 

68.  We  have  had  occasion  more  than  once,  to  call 
attention  to  the  difficulty  of  making  a  consistent  nar- 
ration.   The  novelist  is  justly  thought  to  have  achieved 


320  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

a  miracle  of  art,  who  commits  no  solecism  in  his 
representations  of  character,  no  discrepancy  in  the 
several  parts  of  his  tale.  We  believe  that  this  feat 
has  never  been  accomplished  by  any  uninspired  writer ; 
the  mere  approximation  to  it  confers  distinction. 
But  if  it  be  next  to  impossible  for  a  narrator,  with 
his  own  conception,  his  own  plan,  his  own  arrange- 
ment, to  make  a  congruous  story,  it  is  altogether 
impossible  for  him  to  frame  a  fiction  that  shall  com- 
port in  all  respects  with  three  other  fictions,  having 
the  same  slight  distinction  here,  and  the  same  faint 
resemblance  there,  the  same  shade  of  meaning  in  this 
place,  and  the  same  delicate  colouring  in  that  place. 
With  facts  to  guide  them,  four  men  can  produce 
agreeing  narratives ;  just  as  four  boys,  with  the  same 
model  of  penmanship  before  them,  can  produce  copies 
strikingly  similar.  Each  copy  may  have  its  distinc- 
tive peculiarity,  but  the  inclination,  the  curvature, 
the  general  shape  of  all  the  letters  will  be  the  same. 
But  let  them  attempt  this  similarity,  without  a  model 
to  guide  them,  and  an  experienced  scribe  will  detect 
at  a  glance,  the  greatest  difference  in  the  sloping, 
pointing,  and  turning  of  the  letters  in  the  respec- 
tive copies.  The  Evangelists  have  given  their  several 
accounts,  all  bearing  marks  of  individual  manner  and 
style,  temperament  and  tone  of  thought,  but,  at  the 
same  time,  so  closely  resembling,  as  to  prove  that  they 
were  shaped  after  the  same  model  of  truth. 

We    notice    that  our    Lord  promptly   answers  the 
question,  "Art  thou  the  Christ?"  and  does  not  re- 


OF   CHRIST.  321 

quire  to  be  adjured,  as  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas, 
before  he  will  speak.  It  is  true  that  he  answers, 
under  a  sort  of  protest  against  the  question,  and 
gives  reasons  that  would  justify  silence — reasons  which 
had  previously  influenced  his  mind.  In  all  this,  he 
has  left  a  noble  example  for  our  imitation.  He  did 
not  rashly  precipitate  himself  into  danger.  So  long 
as  there  was  a  chance  for  life,  humanly  speaking,  he 
did  not  disdain  to  use  the  lawful  means  for  its  preser- 
vation. Therefore,  he  declined  to  criminate  himself 
in  the  palace  of  the  high-priest,  until  he  was  put 
upon  oath,  and  could  not  refuse  to  respond,  consist- 
ently with  the  Jewish  jurisprudence.  Now,  however, 
when  informal  sentence  had  been  passed,  and  nothing 
remained  but  to  confess  the  offence  with  which  he  was 
charged,  he  no  longer  hesitates  about  answering.  He 
determines  to  "fulfil  all  righteousness,"  and  to  com- 
ply with  the  minutest  requirements  of  the  Hebrew  law. 
Therefore,  as  he  had  responded  to  the  adjuration  of 
the  high-priest,  in  obedience  with  the  Mosaic  code,  so 
now  he  makes  confession,  in  compliance  with  the  same 
stern  system.  His  conduct  is  thus  seen  to  be  the 
very  farthest  removed  from  the  mad  enthusiasm  of 
the  fanatic  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  shrinking  policy 
of  the  worlding  and  the  coward,  on  the  other  hand. 
He  did  not  court  danger  in  the  spirit  of  wild  and 
intemperate  zeal,  or  vainglorious  bravado ;  neither  did 
he  seek  to  shun  it  by  the  tricks  of  the  timid  and  the 
fearful.  He  neither  exhibited  the  fiery  ardour  of  the 
zealot  Jehu,  nor  the  weakness  and  vacillation  of  the 


322  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

feeble  Peter.  He  neither  sought  nor  avoided  danger. 
Therefore,  he  took  all  proper  precautions  for  his  own 
safety,  consistent  with  truth  and  the  requisitions  of 
the  Mosaic  code.  Never  was  there  manifested  a  nicer 
blending  of  regard  for  personal  rights  with  regard  for 
the  letter  of  the  law.  Never  was  there  manifested  a 
juster  mingling  of  a  due  care  of  life,  with  a  calm  dis- 
posal of  the  issue  into  the  hands  of  Him  who  controls 
all  events.  And  it  was  this  fearlessness  of  death, 
united  with  a  proper  appreciation  of  the  value  of  life, 
which  gave  such  calmness,  dignity,  and  propriety  to 
the  deportment  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  presence 
of  his  murderers.  This  it  was  that  made  his  conduct 
free  alike  from  the  weakness  of  cowardice,  and  the 
recklessness  of  religious  phrenzy. 

69.  The  point  which  we  now  make,  relates  to  the 
consistency  of  the  Evangelists,  in-  the  representation 
of  the  character  of  our  blessed  Redeemer.  They  all 
mention  incidents  in  his  life,  which  show  a  courage 
far  superior  to  that  displayed  on  fields  of  blood  and 
carnage.  They  all  mention  incidents  in  his  life,  which 
show  the  most  consummate  prudence ;  so  that,  in  his 
whole  career,  it  is  equally  impossible  to  point  out  a 
single  act  of  timidity,  or  a  single  act  of  fanatical 
audacity.  One  of  the  first  of  his  public  deeds,  of 
which  we  have  any  record,  required  the  highest  degree 
of  intrepidity.  It  was  no  common  exercise  of  courage 
to  drive  the  traders  out  of  the  temple,  in  face  of  the 
opposition  of  those  interested  in  the  speculation ;  and 
in  face  of  the  opposition  of  the  priests  and  Levites,  to 


OF   CHRIST.  323 

whom  was  committed  the  care  of  the  temple,  and  who 
would  naturally  resist  all  interference  with  their  pre- 
rogatives. 

When  he  talked  with  the  woman  by  Jacob's  well, 
he  frankly  told  her  that  salvation  was  of  the  Jews ; 
and  did  not  seek  to  conciliate  her  favour  by  pander- 
ing to  her  Samaritan  antipathies  and  prejudices.  In 
Nazareth,  he  proclaimed  fearlessly  the  doctrine  of 
God's  sovereignty;  but  when  the  irritated  multitude 
attempted  to  cast  him  down  headlong  from  the  brow 
of  the  hill,  upon  which  the  city  was  built,  he  pru- 
dently passed  "through  the  midst  of  them,  and  went 
his  way."  When  the  Pharisees  censured  his  disciples 
for  plucking  the  ears  of  corn  on  the  Sabbath,  he  con- 
fronted and  confounded  their  accusers  by  a  reference 
to  the  conduct  of  David ;  so  that  the  boldness  of  the 
defence  was  admirably  tempered  with  the  skill  and 
tact  with  which  it  was  made.  In  like  manner,  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  heal  the  man  with  the  withered  hand ; 
but  he  gave  such  cogent  reasons  in  justification  of 
doing  works  of  necessity  on  the  Sabbath,  that  the 
Pharisees  were  afraid  to  lay  hands  on  him,  seeing  that 
he  had  satisfied  the  minds  of  the  common  people  with 
regard  to  his  act  of  healing.  When  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  gathered  about  him,  demanding  a  sign  from 
heaven,  he  did  not  fear  to  say,  "An  evil  and  adulte- 
rous generation  seeketh  after  a  sign,  and  there  shall 
no  sign  be  given  it,  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet 
Jonas."  Here  was  independence  shown  in  refusing 
a  sign,  and  courage  in  denouncing  the  inquisitiveness 


324  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

of  those  who  wished  to  pry  into  the  secret  things  of 
God,  while  neglecting  to  reform  the  secret  sins  of 
their  lives.  At  the  table  of  the  Pharisee,  he  exposed 
the  hypocrisy  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who 
"  tithed  mint  and  rue,  and  all  manner  of  herbs,  and 
passed  over  judgment  and  the  love  of  God."  And 
when  questioned  by  a  lawyer,  in  the  dining  party,  he 
boldly  said,  "Woe  unto  you  also,  ye  lawyers;  for  ye 
lade  men  with  burdens,  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  ye 
yourselves  touch  not  the  burden  with  one  of  your 
fingers."  In  the  synagogue  of  Capernaum,  on  a  cer- 
tain occasion,  he  proclaimed  the  truth  so  faithfully, 
pungently,  and  powerfully,  that  even  his  own  disci- 
ples were  offended,  and  "many  of  them  went  back, 
and  walked  no  more  with  him."  Here  was  exhibited 
heroism  as  a  religious  teacher;  but  it  was  not  asso- 
ciated with  reckless  hardihood. 

As  a  man,  he  took  all  proper  care  of  his  life :  for 
we  are  told,  that  after  these  things  he  walked  no 
more  in  Jewry,  because  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him. 
Notice,  that  it  is  not  said  that  he  feared  the  Jews — 
he  merely  took  those  precautions  which  a  brave  man 
would  take,  who  did  not  fear  death  in  the  path  of 
duty ;  but  who,  nevertheless,  would  not  rashly  expose 
his  life.  And  with  what  calm  dignity,  and  indiffer- 
ence to  danger,  did  our  Lord  rebuke,  in  his  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  the  false  doctrine  and  wicked  practices 
of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees !  And  so  too  at  Caper- 
naum, he  seized  the  opportunity  afforded  by  his 
defence  of  his  disciples    for   eating  with   unwashen 


OF   CHRIST. 


325 


hands,  to  refute  the  vain  traditions  of  those  wno  were 
constantly  weakening  the  word  of  God  to  strengthen 
the  commandments  of  men.  On  his  final  departure 
from  Galilee,  he  would  not  go  up  with  his  disciples, 
because  his  time  was  not  yet  come:  "But  when  his 
brethren  were  gone  up,  then  went  he  also  up  to  the 
feast,  not  openly,  but  as  it  were  in  secret."  When, 
however,  he  had  made  his  appearance  at  the  feast, 
"He  went  up  into  the  temple  and  taught,"  so  fear- 
lessly, that  the  people  said,  "  Is  not  this  he  whom  they 
seek  to  kill  ?  But  lo,  he  speaketh  boldly,  and  they 
say  nothing  to  him."  Here  we  have  again  the  faith- 
fulness of  the  preacher  of  righteousness  united  with 
the  prudence  and  caution  of  the  man.  The  chief 
priests  were  so  indignant  at  the  scathing  rebukes 
then  administered,  that  they  sent  officers  to  arrest 
him;  but  the  officers  returned,  saying,  "Never  man 
spake  like  this  man."  At  this  same  feast,  so  boldly 
did  he  reprove  the  unbelieving  Jews  that  they  "took 
up  stones  to  stone  him."  Again,  he  did  not  disdain 
to  use  the  means  for  personal  security,  and  therefore 
he  "hid  himself,  and  went  out  of  the  temple,  going 
through  the  midst  of  them,  and  so  passed  by."  At  the 
festival  of  the  dedication,  when  the  Jews,  offended  at 
what  he  taught  in  regard  to  his  oneness  with  the 
Father,  sought  once  more  to  kill  him,  "  He  escaped 
out  of  their  hand,  and  went  again  beyond  Jordan,  into 
the  place  where  John  first  baptized;  and  there  he 
abode." 

Matthew,  in  his  twenty-third  chapter,  tells  us  of  the 
28 


326  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

fearful  woes  uttered  by  our  Lord  against  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  but  a  few  days  before  his  crucifixion. 
Never  were  hypocrisy,  false  teaching,  cunning,  fraud, 
and  all  wickedness,  so  fully  and  so  fearlessly  exposed, 
rebuked,  and  denounced.  The  most  influential,  malig- 
nant, and  revengeful  sects  of  the  Jews  were  publicly 
reproved,  in  the  very  seat  of  their  power,  and  in  the 
very  presence  of  their  friends  and  partisans.  And 
remember,  that  this  was  done  by  "the  carpenter's 
son;"  the  man  who  had  "not  where  to  lay  his  head;" 
the  man  who  had  but  twelve  timid  adherents,  and 
these  doubtful  too  about  his  character,  his  person,  and 
his  office. 

We  admire  the  bravery  of  the  warrior,  who,  sur- 
rounded by  his  armed  host,  can  look  with  composure 
upon  danger.  But  there  is  a  courage  higher  than  that 
of  the  battle-field.  Luther  showed  more  true  great- 
ness of  soul  at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  than  MacDonald 
in  the  bloody  charge  at  Wagram.  There  is  a  sort  of 
shoulder-to-shoulder  courage  inspired  by  discipline, 
which  even  timid  men  may  acquire.  But  there  is  a 
loftiness  of  spirit,  which  enables  the  possessor  to 
stand  unmoved,  though  alone  and  friendless,  in  the 
midst  of  the  jeers,  the  taunts,  the  threats,  and  the 
insults  of  an  assembled  multitude:  and  this  was 
the  spirit  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  summary 
that  we  have  given  of  the  incidents  of  his  life,  has 
been  purposely  brief,  and  is  therefore  incomplete 
and  imperfect.  Still  it  has  shown  that  no  danger 
could    intimidate    him,    and   that   no    collections    of 


OF   CHRIST.  327 

men  could  deter  him  from  proclaiming  the  truth. 
But  while,  as  a  religious  teacher,  he  always  declared 
the  whole  counsel  of  God,  yet,  as  a  man,  he  never 
wantonly  risked  life.  And  thus  he  united  in  himself, 
in  the  highest  degree,  the  qualities  which  he  recom- 
mended to  his  disciples — the  wisdom  of  the  serpent 
with  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove.  He  acted  out 
himself  the  directions  which  he  gave  to  them — "when 
they  persecute  you  in  this  city,  flee  ye  into  another." 
We  do  not  expect  the  infidel  to  believe  the  recorded 
incidents  of  our  Lord's  life,  but  we  expect  him  to 
believe  that  there  is  in  existence  a  record  of  those 
incidents.  And  this  latter  belief  will  be  fatal  to  hi3 
creed,  or  rather  to  his  want  of  creed ;  for  consistency 
of  narration  is  ever  considered  to  be  a  strong  proof 
of  the  veracity  of  witnesses:  and  none  can  deny 
that  the  Evangelists  have  been  consistent  in  their 
account  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  Christ. 
They  represent  him  as  uniting  throughout  his  entire 
Lfe,  the  greatest  prudence  with  the  highest  courage ; 
they  tell  of  his  combining  the  most  fearless  denuncia- 
tions of  error  and  wickedness  with  the  strictest  atten- 
tion to  the  preservation  of  life.  They  show  that  no 
flattery  could  seduce  him,  and  no  danger  could  divert 
him  from  reproving  sin  in  every  guise  and  shape ;  and 
yet  that  he  did  not  court  death  in  a  spirit  of  religious 
fanaticism.  And  this  consistency  of  narration,  the 
Evangelists  preserve  to  the  last.  They  tell  of  the 
arrest  of  Jesus,  when  he  had  gone  out  privately  by 
night,  away  from  the  vicinity  of  his  enemies  and  per- 


328  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

secutors.  They  tell  of  his  dignified  silence  in  the 
house  of  Caiaphas,  and  his  refusal  to  say  anything  to 
his  own  prejudice.  They  tell  of  his  calm  acknowledg- 
ment of  his  Messiahship,  when  it  b  ecame  his  duty  to 
make  confession. 

How  has  it  happened  that  the  Evangelists  alone, 
of  all  the  multitudinous  writers  of  the  world,  have 
succeeded  in  describing  a  consistent  character  ?  Three 
of  those  who  accomplished  what  thousands  have  at- 
tempted in  vain,  were  illiterate  men ;  two  of  them  were 
fishermen.  How  has  it  happened  that  a  few  despised 
Galileans  have  surpassed  so  many  myriads,  possessing 
genius,  taste,  learning,  refinement,  and  cultivation? 
We  do  them  but  faint  justice,  when  we  acknowledge 
the  perfection  of  their  description.  The  perfection 
of  the  character  described  must  also  be  taken  into 
account.  If  Jesus  were  a  mythical  hero,  how  did 
these  rude  fishermen  get  the  idea  of  such  a  man? 
History  afforded  no  exemplar,  the  traditions  of  man- 
kind furnished  no  model.  The  heroes,  the  sages,  the 
demigods  of  antiquity  bore  no  resemblance  to  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.  What  then  guided  his  biographers,  in 
their  narration  of  his  mighty  works,  his  wonderful 
discourses,  his  consummate  prudence,  his  matchless 
courage,  his  patience,  his  love,  his  forbearance,  his 
indomitable  zeal,  his  untiring  industry,  his  calm  resig- 
nation to  the  will  of  God,  his  cheerful  submission  to 
the  laws  of  man,  his  touching  devotion  to  kindred  and 
friends,  his  exalted  patriotism,  his  kindness  to  ene- 
mies, his  forgiveness  of  persecutors,  his  indifference  to 


OF   CHRIST.  329 

the  seductions  of  flattery,  his  superiority  to  the  pre- 
judices of  his  age  and  nation,  his  refusal  of  proffered 
honours  and  distinctions,  his  contempt  of  all  the  tricks 
and  artifices   by  which   popular   favour    is   won,   his 
uncompromising  integrity,  his  habitual  prayerfulness, 
his  attention  to  the  weak,  the  poor,  the   despised  of 
the  world ;   his  tenderness  with  children,  his  kindness 
and  gentleness  with  his  friends,  his  serene  and  digni- 
fied deportment  with  opposers  of  the  truth,  his  affec- 
tionate sympathy 'with  the  afflicted  and  the  bereaved? 
Whence  did  these  toilers  on  Lake  Gennesareth  get 
the  idea  of  such  a  man,  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and 
separate  from  sinners  ?     How  are  we  to  explain  the 
fact  that  we  are  indebted  to  these  rude  and  unlettered 
men  for  the  representation  of  the  only  perfect  Being, 
uniting:  all  that  is  bold  and  resolute  in  man,  with  all 
that  is  gentle  and  lovely  in  woman — yea,  combining 
god-like  intelligence  and  powers  with  all  that  can  be 
imagined  of  the  generous,  the  noble,  the  disinterested 
in  unfallen  and  uncorrupted  humanity  ?     Well  might 
Rousseau  think  that  the  conception  of  such  a  character 
would  be  as  great  a  miracle  as  the  existence  of  the 
character  himself.     Aye,   there  is   one   trait   of  the 
character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,   which   could  never 
have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man.     Not  one  of  our 
apostate  race  could  ever  have  conceived  of  a  being  so 
perfectly  unselfish  as   the  man  of  Gethsemane,  the 
man  of  Calvary. 

The  predominant   characteristic    of   our    degraded 
natures  is  utter,  uncompromising  selfishness.     "The 
28* 


330  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

trail  of  the  serpent  is  over  us  all."  "Man  walks  in 
a  vain  shadow,"  a  shadow  of  his  own  casting.  How- 
ever lofty  and  erect  may  be  his  bearing,  he  is  ever 
accompanied  by  this  image  of  himself  flitting  on  the 
ground,  reminding  him  of  his  dual  egoism,  his  double 
selfishness,  and  of  his  alliance  with  all  that  is  low, 
earthly,  and  grovelling.  The  first  wail  of  the  infant 
is  the  plaint  of  selfishness.  My  and  mine  are  among 
the  first  words  formed  by  his  childish  lips.  His 
rattle,  his  toys,  his  play-things  are  jealously  watched 
and  contended  for.  The  sports  around  the  school- 
house  must  be  conducted  according  to  his  selfish 
notions ;  his  school-boy  rights  are  battled  for  with 
selfish  zeal  and  determination.  Parents  and  teachers, 
equally  regardless  of  the  claims  and  privileges  of 
others,  strive  in  vain  to  check  the  growing  evil.  Self- 
ishness is  now  the  ruling  element  of  the  boy's  life. 
He  comes  out  into  the  world,  armed  cap-a-pie  with  a 
complete  panoply  of  egotism.  He  will  thrust  out  of 
his  way,  all  who  are  weaker  than  himself,  and  he  in 
turn  will  be  pushed  aside  by  the  more  powerful.  And 
hence  the  world  is  full  of  wars  and  fightings,  fraud 
and  treachery,  wiles  and  stratagems,  intrigue  and 
double-dealing,  professed  friendship  and  real  hate, 
affected  humility  and  unbounded  pride,  want  of  sym- 
pathy with  others,  and  tender  concern  for  self, 
"hatred,  emulation,  wrath,  strife." 

All  these  have  their  root  in  unmitigated  selfishness. 
This  is  the  fountain  and  the  origin  of  the  whole  evil. 
From  this  cause  the  whole  head  is  sick,  and  the  whole 


OF   CHRIST.  331 

heart  is  faint.  This  it  is  that  leaves  its  slime  and 
defilement  upon  all  that  is  lovely  and  beautiful  in  the 
universe  of  God.  This  it  is  that  rejects  the  Son  of 
God,  and  treats  with  contempt  the  proffers  of  his 
gospel.  But  for  the  sovereign  interposing  grace  of 
the  Spirit,  none  could  be  found  so  unselfish  as  to  be 
willing  to  be  a  mere  cypher,  a  negation,  a  nullity  in 
the  plan  of  salvation.  But  for  this  interposing  grace, 
all  would  want  to  be  saved  by  their  own  works,  and 
not  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  The  unbounded, 
the  immeasurable,  the  infinite  pride  and  selfishness 
of  man,  rise  in  rebellion  against  the  humbling  doctrines 
of  the  cross.  He  will  give  glory  to  himself  for  his 
salvation,  and  not  to  the  sovereign  Father,  the  merci- 
ful Son,  and  the  interceding  Spirit.  Thus  he  ever 
compasses  himself  about  with  his  own  sparks,  and 
walks  in  the  light  of  his  own  fire,  and  the  sparks  he 
has  kindled.  Isa.  1.  11.  Thus,  he  is  not  merely  self- 
ish with  his  fellow-worm  of  the  dust,  but  also  with 
his  Maker,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier.  All  history, 
all  experience,  and  all  observation  confirm  what  the 
Scriptures  teach,  that  death  alone  can  extinguish 
man's  selfishness.  It  is  seen  as  a  flickering  flame 
around  the  cradle,  it  burns  with  a  lurid  glare  in  the 
walks  of  life,  it  goes  out  with  a  ruddy  glow  in  the 
grave.  Alas !  for  poor,  miserable,  degraded  human 
nature ! 

The   annals   of   our  race,   the   eulogies   of  friends, 
even  the  apotheoses  of  mythology  furnish  not  a  sin- 


332  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

gle  example  of  an  unselfish  being.  Whence,  then, 
did  the  Evangelists  draw  their  idea  of  such  a  person- 
age? They  uniformly  represent  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
as  superior  to  the  motives,  the  principles,  the  views, 
the  feelings,  that  influence  our  selfish  natures.  Satan, 
with  his  three  temptations  in  the  wilderness,  appealed 
to  selfisnness — to  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  the  lust  of  the 
eyes,  and  the  pride  of  life — to  the  pain  arising  from 
hunger,  the  love  of  power  and  dominion,  and  the  love 
of  display  and  vainglory.  But  Satan  addressed  in 
vain  these  selfish  considerations  to  our  precious  Re- 
deemer. There  was  no  selfishness  in  his  nature  upon 
which  these  temptations  could  take  hold.  He  who 
left  his  Father's  bosom,  and  his  home  in  the  skies,  to 
endure  the  contradiction  of  sinners,  to  suffer,  to  bleed, 
and  to  die  for  enemies  and  persecutors,  could  not  be 
other  than  a  purely  disinterested  being.  In  nothing 
were  his  own  inclinations  and  his  own  interests  con- 
sulted: yea,  his  very  will  was  lost  in  that  of  the 
Father.  "Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about  my 
Father's  business?"  was  his  reply,  when  a  lad  of  but 
twelve  years  of  age,  to  the  earnest  remonstrance  of 
his  mother.  He  said  to  the  gainsaying  Jews,  "I 
seek  not  my  own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father,  which 
hath  sent  me."  And  when  his  disciples  wondered  at 
his  not  eating  after  a  long  journey,  he  replied,  "My 
meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and  to 
finish  his  work."  And  this  will  was  ever  carried  out 
in  weariness  and  watching,  in  hunger  and  thirst,  in 


OF   CHRIST.  333 

suffering  and  sorrow,  in  trial  and  temptation,  in  peril 
and  persecution,  at  home  and  abroad,  at  all  times 
and  under  all  circumstances. 

Equally  unselfish  was  the  Saviour  in  his  intercourse 
with  the  creatures  his  own  hands  had  formed.  And 
so  he  talked  with  the  woman  by  the  well  of  Samaria, 
about  the  waters  of  salvation,  when  he  was  faint  with 
fatigue,  and  thirsty,  from  his  dusty  travel.  And  so 
he  went  about  doing  good,  consulting  not  his  own 
ease  and  comfort,  but  thinking  only  of  healing  the 
sick,  curing  the  diseased,  raising  the  dead,  giving 
sight  to  the  blind  and  hearing  to  the  deaf,  making 
whole  the  halt  and  the  maimed,  and  preaching  the 
gospel  to  the  poor.  And  so  he  rebuked  the  proud 
hypocrite  who  needed  to  be  rebuked,  and  gave  grace 
to  the  humble  penitent  who  needed  to  be  encouraged. 
And  so  he  washed  the  feet  of  his  own  disciples,  and 
permitted  them  to  sit  at  the  table,  while  he  adminis- 
tered to  their  wants  as  a  servant  waits  on  his  master. 
And  so  he  allowed  his  chosen  watchers  to  sleep  in 
Gethsemane,  and  he  contended  alone  with  the  powers 
of  hell  and  the  spirits  of  darkness.  And  so,  when  the 
arresting  party  came,  with  the  infernal  Judas  at  their 
head,  he  thought  not  of  his  own  safety,  but  of  that  of 
his  fickle  and  faithless  followers;  and  therefore  he 
boldly  advanced  before  them,  acknowledged  that  he 
was  the  person  sought,  and  demanded  that  his  disci- 
ples should  be  let  go.  And  so  in  the  palace  of  Caia- 
phas,  he  refused  to  name  his  disciples,  that  none  might 
be  convicted  through  his  words.     And  so  on  the  way 


334  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

to  Calvary,  he  who  had  wept  over  false  and  bloody 
Jerusalem,  turned  to  the  wailing  women,  and  said, 
"  Daughters  of  Jerusalem,  weep  not  for  me,  but  weep 
for  yourselves  and  for  your  children."  Pie  forgot  the 
dreadful  agony  awaiting  him,  in  his  tender  solicitude 
for  the  daughters  and  children  of  the  city  of  his  slan- 
derers and  murderers.  And  when  the  nails  were 
rending  his  flesh,  and  tearing  his  nerves,  he  was 
thinking  not  of  his  own  excruciating  suffering,  but  of 
the  wrath  of  God  against  his  enemies ;  and  therefore 
he  prayed,  "Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do." 

"Amazing  pity!  gi*ace  unknown, 
And  love  beyond  degree." 

And  now  one  of  his  revilers,  included  in  the  same 
condemnation,  is  touched  with  the  spectacle  of  his 
godlike  patience  and  fortitude,  and  is  led  by  the  Spirit 
to  put  faith  and  trust  in  him  who  is  hanging  by  his 
side,  and  to  cry  aloud,  "Lord,  remember  me."  Once 
more  Jesus  turns  away  from  the  contemplation  of  his 
own  anguish,  to  comfort  and  console  the  poor  peni- 
tent. But  the  powers  of  life  are  beginning  to  wane 
fast ;  the  breath  to  come  short  and  quick ;  the  pulse 
to  beat  low  and  feeble.  He  turns  his  glazing  eye  on 
the  multitude,  and  beholds  his  mother !  Even  in  that 
last,  dreadful  moment,  she  is  not  forgotten.  His  voice 
is  husky  with  the  approach  of  death ;  but  it  is  heard 
distinctly — "Woman,  behold  thy  son!"  and  thou,  my 
well-beloved,  "Behold  thy  mother  !"     All  his  earthly 


OF   CHRIST.  335 

duties  are  now  performed:  but  he  remembers  that 
there  is  one  prophecy  of  the  Father  still  unfulfilled ; 
therefore  he  rallies  expiring  nature,  and  "  saith,  I 
thirst."  And  now,  "  It  is  finished."  The  matchless 
life,  the  unparalleled  death,  are  finished  !  But,  blessed 
be  God,  the  influence  of  them  has  not  yet  ended,  and 
will  not  end  throughout  eternity.  "  The  ransomed 
of  the  Lord  will  return  with  songs  and  everlasting  joy 
upon  their  heads  ;"  and  the  burden  of  their  song,  and 
the  source  of  their  joy  will  be,  the  triumph  of  Jesus 
over  death  and  the  grave.  And  who  can  estimate  the 
unending  influence  of  his  sinless  life  ? 

It  was  an  ancient  myth,  that  the  milky-way  was  the 
bright  track  made  by  the  flashing  wheels  of  the  car 
of  Phaeton.  But  the  Man  of  Calvary  has  left  a  far 
brighter  and  more  glorious  path  than  that  made  by 
the  fabled  son  of  Apollo.  Apostles,  saints,  and  mar- 
tyrs have  trodden  it,  and  found  that  it  was  "the  way, 
the  truth,  and  the  life;"  and  that  it  led  to  mansions 
of  eternal  rest.  Yea  millions  who  will  never  see 
God,  have  admired,  revered,  and,  to  some  extent, 
imitated  the  example  of  his  Son.  There  is  scarcely  a 
corner  of  the  earth  which  has  not  heard  and  been 
influenced  by  the  story  of  his  disinterested  life  and 
unselfish  death.  Eternity  can  alone  reveal  how  much 
the  views,  the  sentiments,  and  the  conduct  of  man- 
kind have  been  modified,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the 
narration. 

The  stone  thrown  into  the  bosom  of  the  placid 
lake,   makes  its  impression   only  upon  the  water  in 


336  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

contact  with  it;  this  moves  the  adjacent  particles, 
and  so  in  ever-widening  circles,  until  the  whole  sur- 
face is  tossed  and  agitated.  And  thus  the  sinless 
life  of  our  Redeemer  may  have  impressed  only  a  few 
at  first ;  but  these  influenced  others,  and  they  in  their 
turn  still  more,  until  the  whole  world  has  felt  the 
divine  impress.  Even  sceptical  philosophers  and  infi- 
del writers  borrow  the  traits  of  character  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  to  deck  and  adorn  their  imaginary  heroes. 
All  that  is  noble,  generous,  magnanimous,  and  disin- 
terested in  their  ideal  representations,  have  been  taken 
without  acknowledgment  from  the  records  of  the 
Evangelists.  Unbelievers  are  ever  prone  to  overlook 
and  ignore  the  indebtedness  of  the  world  to  the  pic- 
ture given  it  of  the  holy  life  and  martyr  death  of  the 
Son  of  God.  We  have  often  noticed,  after  the  sun 
had  sunk  beneath  the  horizon,  the  western  sky  tinged 
with  golden  hues,  and  presenting  ever-changing  forms 
of  loveliness.  And  then  the  evening  star  was  seen 
shining  dimly  at  first,  but  gradually  increasing  in 
splendour,  until  it  shed  its  benign  lustre  over  the 
whole  landscape.  In  a  little  while,  the  moon  came 
forth  walking  in  brightness,  and  diffusing  its  mild 
radiance  everywhere,  beautifying,  softening  and  chas- 
tening all  objects  in  nature.  By  and  by,  another 
planet  starts  up,  and  yet  another,  as  though  wishing 
to  blend  their  beams  also  in  this  glorious  hymn  of 
light  to  the  mighty  Architect  of  the  stellar  system. 
We  look  up  and  behold  the  heavens  glittering  in 
effulgence,  we  look  around  and  see  the  earth  radiant 


OP   CHRIST.  337 

with  beauty,  and  we  forget,  in  our  admiration  of  the 
gorgeousness  of  the  scene,  that  the  sky,  the  moon, 
and  the  planets  derived  all  their  brilliancy  from  the 
sun  that  has  disappeared  from  view.  And  thus  it  is 
in  the  moral  as  well  as  the  physical  world.  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  no  longer  walks  among  men,  but  all  the 
light  that  gilds  the  dark  places  of  the  earth  is 
derived  from  the  Sun  of  Righteousness.  All  our 
ideas  of  purity  and  goodness,  of  benevolence  unmixed 
with  selfish  motives,  of  heroism  and  gentleness,  of 
tenderness  with  friends  and  generosity  with  foes,  of 
kindness  to  the  poor,  the  weak  and  the  friendless,  of 
truth  and  honesty,  of  reverence  for  God,  and  world- 
wide philanthropy,  are  drawn  from  the  deathless  life 
of  Jesus  Christ.  The  very  men  who  reject  and  despise 
him,  h^e  nevertheless  taken  him  as  their  model  of 
perfect  manhood.  There  is  not  a  virtue,  not  a  grace, 
not  a  merit  ascribed  by  them  to  their  model  heroes, 
which  did  not  exist  in  the  lowly  Nazarene,  and  which 
has  not  been  found  in  perfection  in  him,  and  in  him 
alone. 

And  this  brings  us  back  to  the  question  with  which 
we  set  out,  How  did  the  Evangelists  get  the  idea  of 
such  a  man  ?  Caspar  Hauser  was  shut  up  in  a  dark 
cavern  until  manhood,  and  debarred  the  privilege  of 
beholding  the  natural  sun.  What  sort  of  a  concep- 
tion could  he  have  formed  of  its  magnitude,  shape, 
heat,  and  light?  The  world  was  debarred  for  four 
thousand  years  from  the  privilege  of  personal  inter- 
course with  the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  though  he  may 
29 


338  TIIE   CRUCIFIXION 

have  paid  it  an  occasional  visit  as  the  Angel  of  the 
Covenant.  Would  it  have  been  idle  to  have  asked  the 
wild  boy  of  the  cave  for  a  description  of  the  great 
luminary  of  day  ?  How  much  more  preposterous  is 
it  to  suppose  that  fishermen  of  Galilee  could  describe, 
without  the  living  reality  before  them,  the  Maker  of 
the  central  orb  of  our  system;  yea,  it  may  be,  the 
Maker  of  infinite  systems  in  that  boundless  space  of 
which  our  universe  forms  but  a  portion,  a  fragment, 
an  insignificant  speck ! 

The  verses  above  quoted  present  still  another  point 
which  claims  our  attention.  Olshausen  has  satisfac- 
torily shown  that  the  Jews,  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour, 
were  not  aware  of  the  identity  of  the  Messiah  and 
the  Son  of  God.  They  expected  the  former  to  be  a 
temporal  prince,  their  deliverer  from  the  R-omal  yoke ; 
the  latter  was  universally  believed  to  be  a  divine  per- 
sonage. The  commendation  of  Peter  for  his  noble 
confession  may  have  been  partly  because  of  his  percep- 
tion of  the  Sonship  of  the  Christ.  Matt.  xvi.  16,  17. 
Nathanael,  under  the  enlightening  influences  of  the 
Spirit,  had  equally  clear  views ;  for  he  said,  "  Rabbi, 
thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  thou  art  the  king  of  Israel." 
The  Samaritan  woman,  on  the  other  hand,  looked  for 
.a  prophet  in  the  promised  Messiah.  "The  woman 
saith  unto  him,  I  know  that  Messias  cometh,  which  is 
called  Christ:  when  he  is  come,  he  will  tell  us  all, 
things."  Martha  believed  the  truth,  but  Martha  had 
been  under  no  ordinary  teaching.  "  She  saith  unto 
him,  Yea,  Lord:  I  believe  that  thou  art  the  Christ, 


OF   CHRIST.  339 

the  Son  of  God,  which  should  come  into  the  world." 
The  great  body  of  the  Jews,  however,  and  even  their 
rulers,  had  confused  and  imperfect  ideas  of  the  being, 
office,  and  attributes  of  Christ.  "  Others  said,  This 
is  the  Christ.  But  some  said,  Shall  Christ  come 
out  of  Galilee?  Hath  not  the  Scripture  said  that 
Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of  David,  and  out  of  the 
town  of  Bethlehem,  where  David  was?  So  there 
was  a  division  among  the  people  because  of  him." 
We  see  from  this,  that  they  knew  that  the  Christ  must 
be  the  son  of  David,  and  that  they  say  nothing  of  the 
higher  claim  of  Jesus  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 

The  union  of  the  Divine  and  human  natures  in  the 
Messiah,  was  the  very  thing  which  perplexed  the 
chief  priests,  scribes,  and  elders.  They  were  con- 
founded when  called  upon  to  explain  how  David's  son 
could  be  David's  Lord.  And  so  completely  were  they 
confused,  that  "no  man  was  able  to  answer  him: 
neither  durst  any  man,  from  that  day  forth,  ask  him 
any  more  questions."  How  great  must  have  been  the 
embarrassment  which  forbade  those  malignant  crea- 
tures from  seeking  any  more  to  annoy  him  by  captious 
and  querulous  questions  !  The  silencing  of  the  Jews 
proves,  incontestably,  that  they  had  different  notions 
about  the  Messiah  from  those  entertained  by  Nathan- 
ael,  Peter,  and  Martha.  They  believed  that  the  Christ 
was  to  be  the  son  of  David,  but  they  did  not  know 
that  he  was  also  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  The  claim 
of  being  the  Christ  could  only  be  established  by  evi- 
dence of  mighty  works,  miracles,  and  prophecy.    Some 


340  THE    CRUCIFIXION 

of  the  people  thought  that  Jesus  had  this  evidence  in 
proof  of  his  Messiahship,  and  therefore  they  said, 
"  When  Christ  cometh,  will  he  do  more  miracles  than 
these,  which  this  man  hath  done?"  Not  one  of  them 
seems  to  have  suspected  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God. 
In  fact,  the  several  attempts  on  his  life  were  not 
because  of  his  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  but  because 
of  his  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 

The  chief  priests  and  elders  had  too  much  cunning 
to  make  the  former  claim  a  ground  of  complaint,  in 
the  presence  of  the  common  people.  There  was  abun- 
dant proof  to  establish  its  justness,  and  they  knew  it. 
Hence  they  confined  their  accusations  to  the  latter 
claim,  which,  in  their  view,  could  be  established  by 
no  amount  of  miraculous  power.  It  was  blasphemy 
against  God,  and  to  be  punished  with  death.  Hence 
they  took  up  stones  to  stone  him,  whenever  he  spake 
of  his  Divine  origin.  Hence  he  appealed  in  vain  to 
his  mighty  works.  The  Jews  did  not  deny  these 
mighty  works ;  but  they  denied  that  the  gift  of  per- 
forming miracles  could  demonstrate  the  union  of  the 
creature  with  the  Creator.  Jesus  constantly  addressed 
himself  to  this  unreasonable  opinion :  "  Say  ye  of  him, 
whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into  the 
world,  Thou  blasphemest;  because  I  said,  I  am  the 
Son  of  God  ?  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father, 
believe  me  not.  But  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not 
me,  believe  the  works  ;  that  ye  may  know  and  believe 
that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him."  And  so  we 
might  quote  other  passages  bearing  on  the  same  point; 


of  ciirist.  341 

but  those  given  are  sufficient  for  our  purpose.  They 
show  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  claimed  to  be  both  the 
Messiah  and  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  his  disciples 
recognized  him  as  such  a  being.  They  show  that  the 
Jews  accused  him  of  blasphemy,  whenever  he  professed 
to  be  the  Son  of  God.  They  show  that  the  Jews 
refused  to  admit  his  miracles  and  mighty  deeds,  in 
proof  of  his  Sonship.  They  show  that  the  Jews  never 
charged  him  with  professing  to  be  the  Messiah ;  and 
that  such  a  profession  would  not  have  been  regarded 
by  them  as  blasphemous,  and  worthy  of  death. 

Keeping  these  facts  in  view,  we  will  find  that 
Luke's  testimony  is  in  entire  accordance  with  them. 
We  observe,  that  he  separates  the  two  counts  of  the 
indictment  against  our  Lord,  while  Matthew  and  Mart; 
blend  them  together.  Matthew  tells  us  that  the  high- 
priest  asked  him  whether  he  was  "  the  Christ  the  Son 
of  God?"  And  Mark,  that  the  question  was,  "Art 
thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?"  Luke, 
however,  shows  that  when  Jesus  was  brought  before 
the  Sanhedrim,  they  first  demanded  to  know  whether 
he  claimed  to  be  the  Christ ;  and  afterwards,  whether 
he  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  There  is  really  no 
discrepancy  among  the  three  Evangelists.  We  have 
only  to  suppose  that  Matthew  and  Mark  have  con- 
densed the  two  questions  or  two  accusations  into  one, 
and  that  Luke  has  marked  the  distinction  between 
them.  Such  differences  of  narrative  are  perfectly 
allowable,  and  constitute  no  contradiction. 

Having  thus  reconciled  the  seeming  disagreement, 
2CJ* 


342  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

we  are  now  prepared  to  show  that  Luke  harmonizes 
with  all  that  the  other  Evangelists  tell  of  the  claims 
of  our  Lord,  and  of  the  opinions  of  the  Jews  with 
respect  to  those  claims. 

To  use  the  language  of  military  tribunals,  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  arraigned  under  the  charge  of  being  an 
impostor,  or  deceiver  of  the  people.  The  first  speci- 
fication to  this  charge  set  forth  that  he  professed  to 
be  the  Messiah  or  Christ.  The  second  set  forth  that 
he  professed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  The  court  begin 
with  the  first  specification,  and  ask  him  what  he  pleads 
to  it,  "Art  thou  the  Christ?"  His  reply  is  a  frank 
and  an  ingenuous  acknowledgment  of  his  claim  to  be 
the  Christ.  "  Hereafter  shall  the  Son  of  man  sit  on 
the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God."  They  did  not 
misunderstand  him ;  he  had  constantly  called  himself 
the  Son  of  man,  and  they  therefore  knew  his  meaning 
to  be,  "though  I  am  now  a  prisoner  before  you,  I 
shall  hereafter  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the 
Father,  his  co-equal  in  power  and  glory."  His  con- 
fession, then,  amounted  not  merely  to  the  claim  of 
being  the  Christ,  but  also  of  being  the  Son  of  God. 
And  so  the  Sanhedrim  thought — "then  said  they  all, 
Art  thou  then  (literally  therefore)  the  Son  of  God?" 
In  the  original,  the  first  word  rendered  then,  is  differ- 
ent from  the  second,  which  has  the  same  rendering. 
The  first  relates  to  time,  the  second  has  the  force  of 
our  word  therefore.  The  Sanhedrim  say,  "Thou  hast 
used  language  consistent  only  with  equality  with  God, 
Art  thou,  therefore,  his  Son?"     To  this  Jesus  replies 


of  ciirist.  343 

with  the  same  candour  as  to  the  former  question, 
"Ye  say  that  I  am."  His  answer,  as  we  have  before 
seen,  was  a  direct  affirmative,  and  equivalent  to  "  Yes, 
I  am."  And  so  the  council  understood  it,  and  cried 
out,  "What  need  we  any  further  witnesses?  for  we 
ourselves  have  heard  of  his  own  mouth." 

The  question  might  now  be  asked,  why  the  Sanhe- 
drim judged  the  words  just  spoken  as  being  sufficient 
for  his  condemnation.  Luke  affords  us  no  explana- 
tion. But  on  turning  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  we  learn 
that  the  last  words  of  Jesus  were  regarded  by  the 
Sanhedrim  as  blasphemous,  and  therefore  sufficient  to 
justify  them  in  pronouncing  sentence  of  death  against 
him,  in  accordance  with  the  Mosaic  code. 

70.  Well  may  we  exclaim,  on  closing  our  summary 
of  evidence:  "Righteous  art  thou,  0  Lord,  and  up- 
right are  thy  judgments.  Thy  testimonies  that  thou 
hast  commanded  are  righteous  and  very  faithful." 
We  derived  from  John  most  of  the  proofs  given  above, 
that  Jesus  taught  that  he  was  both  the  Messiah  and 
the  Son  of  God,  and  that  the  Jews  were  ignorant  of 
the  oneness  of  these  two  personages.  We  derived 
altogether  from  John,  the  proof  that  the  Jews  re- 
garded the  claim  to  Sonship  as  blasphemous,  and 
too  preposterous  to  be  established  by  the  performance 
of  miracles  and  mighty  works.  We  learn,  too,  from 
John,  that  the  Jews  attempted  to  stone  our  Lord 
whenever  he  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  Now, 
Luke,  who  had  not  said  a  word  about  the  distinction 
that  the  Jews  had  made  between  the  Christ  and  the 


344  THE   CRUCIFIXION 

Son  of  God,  shows,  nevertheless,  that  they  observed 
this  distinction  in  the  trial  of  Jesus  before  the  Sanhe- 
drim. Moreover,  Luke  shows  that  although  the  San- 
hedrim made  this  distinction,  Jesus  himself  did  not. 
For  when  he  acknowledged  his  Messiahship  he  acknow- 
ledged his  Sonship  also ;  and  thus  made  his  confession 
consistent  with  the  whole  scope  of  his  previous  teach- 
ing. We  notice,  too,  that  Matthew  and  Mark  supply 
an  important  omission  of  Luke,  who  does  not  tell  why 
the  Sanhedrim  regarded  our  Lord's  acknowledgment 
of  his  Sonship  to  be  a  sufficient  ground  for  his  con- 
demnation. The  omission  they  supply  by  stating 
that  the  council  construed  the  acknowledgment  into 
blasphemy.  And  thus  Matthew  and  Mark  harmonize 
with  John,  while  they  are  supplementing  Luke.  We 
notice,  yet  again,  that  the  accounts  of  the  first  two 
Evangelists  of  the  trial  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas 
appear,  at  first  glance,  to  conflict  with  what  had  been 
said  elsewhere,  of  the  distinction  made  by  the  Jews 
between  the  Messiah  and  the  Son  of  God.  But  Luke 
removes  the  difficulty,  by  showing  that  there  were  two 
separate  specifications,  which  have  been  consolidated 
into  one  by  Matthew  and  Mark. 

How  is  it  possible  to  believe  that  this  most  perfect, 
and  yet  most  complex  and  intricate  harmony  among 
the  Evangelists  is  the  result  of  a  wicked  collusion? 
There  can  be  but  one  rational  explanation  of  this  cor- 
dial agreement,  amidst  seeming  differences,  and  that 
is,  that  the  variant  language  and  style  of  the  Evange- 
lists were   controlled  and   directed  by  the   Spirit  of 


OF   CHRIST.  345 

God.  The  royal  Psalmist  could  run  his  fingers  over 
his  harp  of  many  strings,  and  make  the  peculiar  and 
distinctive  notes  uttered  by  them  severally  blend  in 
delightful  unison,  and  form  a  concord  of  sweet  sounds. 
Thus  the  Spirit  of  truth,  while  permitting  the  greatest 
differences  of  phraseology,  manner  and  arrangement 
in  the  gospel  narratives,  has  so  guided  and  controlled 
their  peculiar  and  distinctive  statements,  as  to  blend 
them  into  consistent  and  concordant  union.  The 
supervision  of  the  Spirit  can  alone  account  for  the 
fact,  that  discrepancies  of  narration  are  real  agree- 
ments, that  differences  are  concealed  harmonies,  and 
that  contradictions  are  strong  confirmations. 

"  Concerning  thy  testimonies,  I  have  known  of  old 
that  thou  hast  founded  them  for  ever." 


THE    END. 


DATE  DUE 


HIGHSMITH  #45230 


BS2425.7.H64 

The  crucifixion  of  Christ. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00013  3258 


i\  ii  villi 


mm 


. 


